Eight free-speech groups, including the EFF, and three members of Congress file briefs with SCOTUS in support of TikTok's appeal against the divest-or-ban law
For those of you who haven't been following, the law doesn't *ban* TikTok—instead, it'll prohibit “app stores” and the like from offering it or servicing it after 01/19 *if* (and only if) there isn't a divestment of TikTok from PRC ownership by then. … Marty Lederman / @martylederman : While waiting for other briefs, I'll interlineate a few thoughts and things to look for. FWIW, I think it's highly likely the SCOTUS will uphold the law. My posts here will reflect some of the reasons why I think so. I don't have any strong views on whether the law was wise. [5] Marty Lederman / @martylederman : And here's the Knight Institute brief, also in opposition. [3] — www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ 24... @knightcolumbia.org @jameeljaffer.bsky.social X: Ryan Calo / @rcalo : Lots of people contributed but counsel @WillkieFarr and profs @AnupamChander @dispositive and Ash Bhagwat took the lead. (Correct me if I'm leaving folks out!) Thanks for the opportunity to work on this important intervention. Ryan Calo / @rcalo : The Act implicates the speech of millions of Americans. Congress thinks you can cut and paste the dynamic conversation that is TikTok to another platform. This is nonsense. The ban would shut down a music festival because Spotify. Ryan Calo / @rcalo : Here is our amicus brief submitted to the Suprem Court on behalf of First Amendment and Internet Law Scholars arguing that the TikTok ban is unconstitutional. https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ... See also Mediagazer
Context & Ripple Effects
The briefs add a civil-liberties coalition to ByteDance's request that the Supreme Court halt the divest-or-ban law. The dispute turns on a law aimed at PRC ownership that places compliance obligations on app stores and other service providers if no divestment occurs.
The case had already survived a federal appeals-court challenge, sharpening the Supreme Court fight into a clash between First Amendment arguments and Congress's asserted security rationale.
First-order effects
- TikTok and ByteDance gain additional amici advancing the argument that the law's restrictions violate free-speech protections; the EFF, the Knight First Amendment Institute, scholars, and three members of Congress put distinct constitutional arguments before the Court.
- App stores and comparable services remain the immediately regulated intermediaries under the law: absent a qualifying divestment, they would be barred from offering or servicing TikTok after the deadline.
Second-order effects
- The filings make the case a test not only of TikTok's ownership but of how far Congress can require distribution intermediaries to cut off a communications platform on national-security grounds.
- A ruling against TikTok would force platform distributors to prioritize statutory compliance over continued access to the service, while a ruling for TikTok would constrain this divest-or-ban approach.
Third-order effects
- The litigation points toward national-security policy being implemented through platform access and ownership conditions rather than direct content rules—a model whose constitutional limits remain central.
- If sustained, the approach could make app-store and service-provider obligations a recurring lever in disputes over foreign-linked digital platforms, with First Amendment scrutiny shaping its reach.
The trend: Foreign-ownership scrutiny is increasingly testing whether governments can regulate digital platforms by conditioning the infrastructure that distributes them.