Live blog: The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in TikTok's appeal against the divest-or-ban law

We're tuning in live as the justices consider what could be one of the most consequential First Amendment rulings of the past several decades. — The US Supreme Court is expected …

Wired 2025-01-10

Context & Ripple Effects

The hearing is the culmination of TikTok's emergency bid for Supreme Court intervention after an appeals court declined to pause the law. The dispute has drawn competing constitutional and national-security arguments, including free-speech briefs backing TikTok's challenge.

The immediate significance is less a final operational change than a test of how the Court weighs platform speech against the government's stated security rationale. Subsequent coverage of the arguments indicated that several justices appeared receptive to the law, sharpening the stakes for TikTok and its US users.

First-order effects

TikTok, ByteDance, and the government receive a clearer read on the Court's concerns; the argument itself does not alter the law or TikTok's availability.
If the Court declines to block the measure, TikTok faces immediate pressure to pursue a divestiture or prepare for the law's consequences in the US.

Second-order effects

A ruling favoring the government would force TikTok's creators, advertisers, and commercial partners to plan for disruption or shift activity toward competing platforms.
It would also give policymakers and companies a more concrete legal benchmark for weighing ownership-based restrictions on communications platforms, even though the case concerns TikTok specifically.

Third-order effects

If the law is upheld, the case could establish that national-security concerns can sustain significant constraints on a foreign-owned social platform despite First Amendment objections.
That would accelerate a broader shift from content-focused platform oversight toward governance based on ownership, control, and access to user data; its reach would depend on the Court's reasoning.

The trend: The case is a major test of whether platform regulation will increasingly turn on ownership and national-security risk rather than on speech rules alone.

Discussion

@willoremus.com Will Oremus on bluesky
Oof! First reference to Bluesky in the U.S. Supreme Court comes from Justice Elena Kagan, who uses it as an example of how it isn't just TikTok that has “black box” algorithms, all the social media sites do. — Valid argument, bad example—Bluesky's algorithms are open-source.
@drewharwell.com Drew Harwell on bluesky
A slightly awkward argument: TikTok doesn't manipulate content, but it'd be OK if it did. — Content manipulation is an “impermissible” govt interest, atty said. “You could not go to CNN or Fox News and say, 'We're going to regulate you because you're manipulating the content i…
@davelee.me Dave Lee on bluesky
Social media companies, who say they absolutely are NOT publishers, no no no, sure do like to use protections for publishers to defend themselves
@drewharwell.com Drew Harwell on bluesky
A curious opening analogy, in which TikTok says it's like the @washingtonpost.com: — Suppose “China uses leverage over Jeff Bezos ... to force [The Post] to write whatever China wanted ... Surely the govt couldn't come in” to tell Bezos to sell or shut down — www.washingtonpo…
@davelee.me Dave Lee on bluesky
TikTok lawyer a little tied in knots here — disputes that ByteDance has ultimate control over TikTok. Absurd on its face.
@jason_kint Jason Kint on x
I think SCOTUS just got to a super important part of the convo. The argument TikTok must win due to 1A rights of the people on it means you're in turn granting 1A rights to a foreign nation. Now into a bad argument the biz is unique and can't be replaced by other platforms.
@mikesacksesq Mike Sacks on x
Kagan: “Why isn't this Congress acting with respect to ByteDance in saying ByteDance has to divest” and then TikTok can go do what it wants with what's available on the market? Creators' lawyer says BUT WE WANT TO USE TIKTOK BC OF BYTEDANCE'S ALGO! Kagan ain't having it.
@swiftstories Mike Swift on x
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson returning with Fisher to her former focus in exchange with Francisco about whether this is really a law preventing associations, not speech. But Fisher counteres the #DataSecurity concerns don't justify the broad ban on speech. #TikTok
@swiftstories Mike Swift on x
Based on the first hour of oral argument on the @tiktok_us before #SCOTUS, I haven't heard a single question from any justice that is remotely sympathetic to the #FirstAmendment arguments of #TikTok
@mikesacksesq Mike Sacks on x
Alito, the Court's least speech-protective justice, doesn't care if this is about speech bc he - er, a hypothetical Congress - believes TikTok is the “worst offender” for “gathering an arsenal information about American citizens” by a foreign entity.
@mikesacksesq Mike Sacks on x
Barrett wants to know if the algorithm is the speech here. Subtext: she's relitigating what was at issue in last term's content moderation cases - and whether algorithms are protected under the 1st Amendment. But then says ByteDance is pushing covert content manipulation algos.
@mikesacksesq Mike Sacks on x
Gorsuch wants to talk FACTS. Does TikTok US actually have control over its algo and recommendation engine? Can divestiture feasibly happen on any timeline? Has ByteDance followed PRC commands for covert content manipulation? Gorsuch not tipping hand, but seems hostile to TikTok.
@mikesacksesq Mike Sacks on x
Here comes Alito with his blunt force hypos. This already a bloodbath.
@mikesacksesq Mike Sacks on x
(As an aside about Sotomayor and Kavanaugh's questions: Sotomayor was asking about what 1A tier of scrutiny SCOTUS should apply. Kavanaugh wants to get rid of tiers of scrutiny and apply his history and tradition test from 2A to 1A. But both will reach same result in this case.)
@mikesacksesq Mike Sacks on x
Sotomayor tries to reorient back towards TikTok's 1A rights...only to suggest the ban doesn't violate the 1A.
@mikesacksesq Mike Sacks on x
Roberts agrees with Thomas that this is about ByteDance, not TikTok. Calls BS on the framing that this is about a US company operating in the US. In Roberts exasperation voice: “Do you dispute the fact that Bytedance has ultimate control over TikTok?”
@mikesacksesq Mike Sacks on x
Trump's first-term SG is repping TikTok to fight a law he'd likely have defended had Congress passed it before 2020
@mikesacksesq Mike Sacks on x
Thomas sounds like he'll vote to uphold the ban as targeting ByteDance, a foreign company
r/technology r on reddit
TikTok could shut down unless Supreme Court blocks or delays U.S. ban
r/JordanPeterson r on reddit
TikTok says it plans to shut down site unless Supreme Court strikes down law forcing it to sell
r/theworldnews r on reddit
TikTok says it plans to shut down site unless Supreme Court strikes down law forcing it to sell

Chronicles