Trump Wants Supreme Court to Stay the TikTok Ruling
“Instead, he urges the Court to stay the statute’s effective date to allow his incoming Administration to pursue a negotiated resolution that could prevent a nationwide shutdown of TikTok, thus preserving the First Amendment rights of tens of millions of Americans, while also addressing the government’s national security concerns.”
President-elect Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to delay a ruling on the TikTok case and allow him to negotiate to prevent the ban.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a law that requires the sale or ban of TikTok in America.
It would go into effect on January 19, 2025.
Trump attorney John Sauer, who is also Trump’s pick for solicitor general, writes in the brief:
President Trump takes no position on the merits of the dispute. Instead, he urges the Court to stay the statute’s effective date to allow his incoming Administration to pursue a negotiated resolution that could prevent a nationwide shutdown of TikTok, thus preserving the First Amendment rights of tens of millions of Americans, while also addressing the government’s national security concerns. If achieved, such a resolution would obviate the need for this Court to decide extremely difficult questions on the current, highly expedited schedule.
President Joe Biden signed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, naming TikTok and ByteDance. The act “made it functionally illegal for ‘a foreign adversary controlled application’ to operate within the United States, or for any other entity to provide ‘internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating’ of the app.”
The law targets all companies where “a citizen of an adversarial nation ‘directly or indirectly own[s] at least a 20 percent stake.’”
Sauer provides three arguments for the stay.
The first argument reminds SCOTUS that in previous cases, the Court “aptly cautioned against deciding ‘unprecedented’ and ‘very significant constitutional questions’ on a ‘highly expedited basis.'”
The second argument targets the D.C. Circuit’s justification for upholding the law: national security.
Sauer claims national security concerns fall under the Executive Branch (omitted citations):
First, the Act dictates that the President must make a particular national security determination as to TikTok alone, while granting the President a greater “degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction” as to all other social-media platforms. Second, the Act mandates that the President must exercise his power over foreign affairs “through an interagency process” commanded by Congress, instead of exercising his sole discretion over the deliberative processes of the Executive Branch. Third, the Act—due to its signing date— now imposes a deadline for divestment that falls one day before the incoming Administration takes power. Especially when viewed in combination, these unique features of the Act raise significant concerns about possible legislative encroachment upon the President’s prerogative to manage the Nation’s geopolitical, strategic relationships overall, and with one of our most significant counterparts, China, specifically. This is an area where the Nation must “speak … with one voice,” and “[t]hat voice must be the President’s.”
The third argument contains the First Amendment. I think this should have been the first argument, but I digress.
“Third, the First Amendment implications of the federal government’s effective shuttering of a social media platform used by 170 million Americans are sweeping and troubling,” Sauer continues. “There are valid concerns that the Act may set a dangerous global precedent by exercising the extraordinary power to shut down an entire social-media platform based, in large part, on concerns about disfavored speech on that platform.”
Trump wanted to shut down TikTok during his first administration.
However, Trump joined the platform during the 2024 campaign and quickly gained 14.7 million followers.
Melania Trump told Fox & Friends that Barron, her son with Trump, advised him to engage with people his age.
The 18-year-old told Trump who he needed “to contact and to talk to.”
Trump and VP-elect JD Vance went on Joe Rogan’s podcast. Trump also went on podcasts with Theo Von, Andrew Schulz, Patrick Bet-David, and Logan Paul.
Trump even brought popular younger influencers on stage at his rallies.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Question, so why is Pence and McCoonnell against this?
Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell Urge Supreme Court to Uphold Tik Tok Ban – President Trump Urges SCOTUS to Delay
“Consistent with his commanding presence in this area, President Trump currently has 14.7 million followers on TikTok with whom he actively communicates, allowing him to evaluate TikTok’s importance as a unique medium for freedom of expression, including core political speech. Indeed, President Trump and his rival both used TikTok to connect with voters during the recent Presidential election campaign, with President Trump doing so much more effectively. As this Court instructs, the First Amendment’s ‘constitutional guarantee has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.’”
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/12/28/mike-pence-and-mitch-mcconnell-urge-supreme-court-to-uphold-tik-tok-ban-president-trump-urges-scotus-to-delay/
They’re not. Trump only filed his amicus now, so they weren’t even aware of it when they filed their briefs, so they couldn’t have opposed it. In any case their brief, like all the others in the case until Trump’s, are about the constitutional issue before the court, on which Trump explicitly says he takes no position.
As for why they want the ban upheld, it’s for the same reason Trump did until five minutes ago, and for the same reason Trump will still want it upheld if he fails to reach a negotiated solution.
All he’s asking for is a delay to give him time to negotiate. But if the act is struck down then he’ll have nothing to negotiate with. So even from his point of view the act should be upheld, but not right now.
All he’s asking the court is that it should not expedite the case, but put it on the regular schedule and get to it in the same time as it would any normal case, which will give him time to try to resolve the problem.
When I think of Tik Tok I think of how soon KAsh is in office and all of the arrests that follow that
Tik Tok M-f-ers…
None of my browsers work with tik tok. Apparently I’m not sufficiently logged in, or maybe you need an app. Never download apps.
Speaking as a programmer.
Chy-nees malware
The “ban” would not be a shutdown. It would prohibit future distribution of the app while still owned by ByteDance, but current users would not have access blocked.
Important to know that any promises ByteDance may make about data security or privacy are empty. They’re China-affiliated, China-backed, and China-controlled. If Xi wants TikTok’s userbase data, he’ll get it.
I can understand the businessman in Trump wanting to leverage another bargaining chip, but the statute, renegotiated or not, needs to go through.
All he’s asking for is a delay in the case. Let the Supreme Court say this is not so important that we need to decide it right this second, let it come up in the regular rotation. In the meantime just stay it. That would give Trump time to try to resolve the problem peacefully, with the act lurking in the background as a threat.
Trump either wants credit for whatever happens with tik tok or he wants to use at as a bargaining chip with China.
Either way, I think he can still do that post ban unless tik tok folds and complies
So if TikTok, a chicom owned social media website I do not use and will never use, is shuttered, I lose my free speech rights?
If the government can shut down an information exchange platform because they don’t like the owner, yes, your free speech rights are in danger.
Yes, because now you can’t use it.
The other side of the coin is that the act doesn’t require it to shut down, it requires the Chinese owner to sell it. Shutting down is only a consequence of its refusal.
So if AR15s, a gun you neither own nor use, are banned, you lose your 2A rights?
Yes, you do.
Tik Tok is the AR15 of the 1A. Allow the government to ban it, and you’ve broken that amendment permanently. Now banning any other variant they want, including WND, Daily Wire, or X, is just a question of opportunity.
If you want to know how that game is played, just look to the state-curated lists of guns that are “safe” and “unsafe” to own in tyrannies like Massachusetts and California… where the AR and even the Glock are “guns with one purpose only — to kill as many people as possible in the shortest possible time.” Except, of course, when they are inside a police vehicle, which magically transforms them into “patrol rifles” and “service pistols.”
Government control over ownership is fundamentally the equivalent of controlling content.
Change my mind.
Leave a Comment