Days ahead of the showdown in TikTok v Garland—and a fortnight before TikTok could vanish from

Americans’ smartphones—the legal debate over the wildly popular social-media site is coming into focus.

On one side of this Supreme Court dispute are the Biden administration and lawmakers who warn that TikTok’s links

to the Chinese government threaten national security.

On the other are ByteDance (TikTok’s parent company), free-speech advocates, some of the estimated 170m

Americans who regularly scroll the app and Donald Trump, the president-elect.

The case, slated for oral argument on January 10th, may give the justices a bout of cognitive dissonance.

The Supreme Court tends to defer to Congress and the executive branch when concerns about national security arise.

Yet the justices also aggressively police freedom of speech.

Lawyers found their Christmases ruined when the Supreme Court ordered initial briefs due on December 27th.

Their new year’s plans were complicated by a January 3rd deadline for final filings.

The question: does the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, a law approved

last April by 360-58 in the House and 79-18 in the Senate, and signed by President Joe Biden,

violate the First Amendment?

Senator Mitch McConnell submitted a feisty amicus brief defending the law, which will remove TikTok from app

stores on January 19th unless it is sold to a non-Chinese company.

“The right to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment”, he writes, “does not apply to a corporate agent of the

Chinese Communist Party.”

To hold otherwise means Nikita Khrushchev would have had a constitutional right “to buy CBS and replace The Bing

Crosby Show with Alexander Nevsky” (he did not say whether this would have been a good exchange).

The Biden administration says that ByteDance permits China, a “foreign adversary”, to “harvest sensitive data about

tens of millions of Americans” and to acquire “a potent tool for covert influence operations”.

It says the law thwarts such influence without infringing on the First Amendment. Mandatory divestment “does not

involve speech at all”—just a change of ownership.

Lawyers for ByteDance and for individual TikTokers insist otherwise.

“​​No arm of the Chinese government has an ownership stake—directly or indirectly—in TikTok Inc. or ByteDance,

” the company says.

The ban will harm the 17% of adults who “regularly get news from TikTok” and cut off the flow of clips from American

creators, who uploaded 5.5bn in 2023.

The American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Knight First Amendment Institute at

Columbia University say the ban would close “a vast universe of expressive content, from musical performances and

comedy to politics and current events”.

The Cato Institute dusts off John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” to argue that even “propaganda” deserves protection:

the First Amendment “foreclose[s] public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind”.

Mr Trump, whose previous scepticism about TikTok has softened as he has amassed 14.7m followers on the platform,

tells the justices he “is uniquely situated” to “vindicate” the “free-speech rights of all Americans”.

As “one of the most powerful, prolific, and influential users of social media in history”, and with his “consummate

dealmaking expertise”, Mr Trump should have the chance to broker a “negotiated resolution”.

He wants the Supreme Court to pause.

But for all its boasting, Mr Trump’s brief takes no position on the legal questions in the case.

Without a legal justification, the court has no basis for delaying the reckoning.

So if the app survives, its salvation will have little to do with the incoming president’s intervention.

Many experts see TikTok’s days ticking to a close.

Raffi Melkonian, a Supreme Court litigator, thinks the Foreign Adversary Law should be struck down but suspects

the justices will not do so.

Genevieve Lakier, a First Amendment scholar at the University of Chicago law school, says the justices tend to view

freedom of speech “very narrowly when claims of national security are invoked by the federal government”.

But she hopes the court does not “shut down such an enormously important speech platform”.

A TikToker known as “stephen rigatoni” agrees.

“I feel like if I sat down and had one singular Coors Light with the Supreme Court”, he said in a recent video,

“we could figure it out.” ■