United States federal appeals court on Friday declined to temporarily halt a ban on TikTok, setting the stage for a potential Supreme Court showdown over the law’s implementation as the platform challenges its legality.
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals had unanimously upheld the law last week, paving the way for it to take effect on January 19.
Following the ruling, TikTok requested a temporary block while preparing to seek Supreme Court review.
However, the appeals court unanimously denied the request in a brief, unsigned order, calling such a block “unwarranted.”
The TikTok ban, a highly scrutinized piece of legislation, has been widely anticipated to reach the conservative-majority Supreme Court.
The law mandates that TikTok’s ownership be transferred to a non-Chinese entity or face a ban in the United States.
After the January deadline, app stores and internet providers could face significant penalties for hosting the platform unless compliance is achieved.
The legislation permits the president to issue a one-time extension of the deadline.
In court filings, TikTok signaled its intent to petition the Supreme Court for emergency relief if the appeals court did not grant an interim pause, which could result in the matter being addressed during the holiday season.
The company’s attorneys argued that an interim injunction would allow for “a more deliberate and orderly process,” emphasizing the Supreme Court’s critical role.
The Biden administration opposed the temporary block, cautioning that such an action might delay TikTok’s appeal to the Supreme Court by months, effectively stalling the law indefinitely.
Passed with bipartisan support earlier this year and signed by President Joe Biden in April, the legislation responds to longstanding concerns in Washington about TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, and its potential national security risks.
Last week, the DC Circuit affirmed that the law aligns with the US Constitution, meeting the “strict scrutiny” standard required for government-imposed restrictions on speech.
The court’s ruling emphasized the thorough, bipartisan nature of the legislation and its focus on countering threats from foreign adversaries.
“The Act was the culmination of extensive, bipartisan action by the Congress and by successive presidents. It was carefully crafted to deal only with control by a foreign adversary, and it was part of a broader effort to counter a well-substantiated national security threat posed by the (People’s Republic of China),” the court stated. “Under these circumstances, the provisions of the Act that are before us withstand the most searching review.”
TikTok’s attorneys argue that the Supreme Court should weigh in on the critical legal issues at stake.
“This Court’s holding that the Act satisfies strict scrutiny is sure to attract the Supreme Court’s attention,” they wrote, adding, “It is, at the very least, a close question whether the Act is the rare law that would survive strict scrutiny.”
