In a recent legal battle, the U.S. federal court has declined TikTok's plea to halt the enforcement of a sale mandate over national security concerns.
The New York Times reported that the court's decision has led TikTok to seek an emergency intervention from the Supreme Court to address the constitutionality of the law.
The law in question demands that TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, either divest its ownership in the app or face a ban in the U.S. starting January 19.'
This legislation was challenged by TikTok, which hoped to prevent immediate enforcement while broader legal challenges were in play.
Last Friday, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against granting TikTok this temporary injunction. The court accelerated its decision to allow TikTok a chance to approach the Supreme Court ahead of the enforcement deadline.
The request for an injunction was first denied last week by a three-judge panel at the same court, marking a significant setback for TikTok and its vast user base, which the company claims includes 170 million users in the U.S. alone.
Further complicating TikTok's position, the appeals court pointed out the lack of precedent for a court to enjoin an Act of Congress pending a Supreme Court review after a constitutional challenge had been dismissed.
TikTok's request to the appeals court last Monday was for a delay in enforcement until their appeal could be heard by the Supreme Court, targeting a decision by today, December 16.
Legal experts are now watching closely, with anticipation that the Supreme Court might take up TikTok's plea and potentially freeze the enforcement of the law until a final decision regarding the constitutionality challenge is resolved.
The central argument from TikTok revolves around the feasibility of a forced sale, hindered by regulations from the Chinese government, and concerns that an outright ban would violate First Amendment rights regarding free speech.
Amid these legal maneuvers, TikTok hoped for a potential reprieve following the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, who had earlier vowed to advocate for the app during his campaign.
However, Donald Trump amended his position in a recent interview on NBC's "Meet the Press", shifting his focus towards preventing monopolies and enhancing governmental powers to ban apps owned by Chinese companies, which reduces the likelihood of presidential intervention in TikTok's favor.
The House of Representatives has taken a firm stance as well, with a committee warning major tech platforms Apple and Google to halt TikTok's distribution unless the app is sold under the new law.
A separate communication to TikTok CEO Shou Chew from the committee has explicitly urged compliance by arranging the sale of TikTok to avoid the impending ban.
So far, Apple has maintained silence over its intended actions, while Google has refrained from commenting on its compliance strategies regarding the distribution of TikTok on its platforms.
In response to the unfolding events, TikTok spokesperson Michael Hughes expressed the company's commitment to defending its right to operate in the United States. "As we have previously stated, we plan on taking this case to the Supreme Court, which has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech," said Hughes. He highlighted the risk of silencing the voices of American users if the law proceeds without being blocked.
This ongoing legal struggle represents a significant moment for digital rights and national security considerations, with implications for how foreign-owned apps interact with U.S. laws and user rights. The outcome could set precedential guidelines for the future of international app governance in the U.S.