The US Supreme Court has agreed to review ByteDance's challenge to a law that would ban TikTok in America from January 19.
“The case is set for oral argument on Friday, January 10, 2025,” read the filing, which noted that the justices will hear a two-hour oral argument.
“The parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment.”
The Supreme Court agreeing to hear TikTok's case is the first victory, albeit small, that the incredibly successful social media platform has scored as it seeks to challenge accusations of US user data being compromised by China-based parent company, ByteDance.
ByteDance has repeatedly denied that user data is compromised, but several months ago, in a bipartisan vote, the US Congress passed a law that demanded ByteDance divest from TikTok or be banned in the US by January 19. The law was signed by US President Joe Biden.
During his first term in the White House, president-elect Donald Trump voiced concern about potential data risks surrounding TikTok but, during his 2024 run for president, he joined the platform and quickly gained millions of followers.
Earlier in the week, Mr Trump said he had a “soft spot” for TikTok, but did not say whether he might potentially save the platform from the ban.
He could try to convince Congress to repeal the law, but that would be a long shot, as the legislation had bipartisan support.
Mark MacCarthy, a senior fellow at the Institute for Technology Law and Policy at Georgetown Law in Washington, pointed out that the Supreme Court essentially deferred action on injunctive relief, pending the forthcoming oral argument.
"This doesn’t prejudge the decision," he said.
"If, after the argument, the court feels it is likely to reject the law in whole or in part, it would grant the injunction then."
Ultimately, he believes the Supreme Court will uphold the circuit court's decision.
“It will probably give full discretion to the government with a rational national security demand conflicting with the First Amendment,” he said, before explaining his own personal stance on the law that puts TikTok's US future in jeopardy.
“A TikTok ban would be terrible on policy grounds but it should withstand constitutional challenge,” he said, saying that he thinks the law is too rooted in a confrontational US policy towards China which could quickly escalate.
David Greene, civil liberties director and senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit group promoting civil liberties in the tech world, said that EFF was pleased that the Supreme Court decided to hear TikTok's argument, adding that the DC Circuit Court which upheld the ban legislation failed to factor in First Amendment arguments, and instead relied on unproven national security fears.
"The TikTok ban itself and the DC Circuit's approval of it should be of great concern even to those who find TikTok undesirable or scary," he said, in part.
"Shutting down communications platforms or forcing their reorganization based on concerns of foreign propaganda and anti-national manipulation is an eminently anti-democratic tactic, one that the US has previously condemned globally."
TikTok issued a brief statement several hours after the Supreme Court announced it would hear the company's challenge to the law.
"We're pleased with today's Supreme Court order," the statement read, in part.
"We believe the Court will find the TikTok ban unconstitutional so the over 170 million Americans on our platform can continue to exercise their free speech rights."
