The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which is scheduled to go into effect on Sunday, was unanimously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday. It makes it illegal for American firms to deliver TikTok unless the U.S. activity of TikTok is separated from Chinese power. Since there isn’t a long-term strategy for a parting, the Act amounts to a ban.
About 170 million Americans use TikTok, including to accessibility sports information. Since users can find the same material abroad, Mark Cuban lately told Sportico he is skeptical that a TikTok restrictions may include a significant impact on the sports market. However, TikTok is a major part of some Americans ‘ lives—especially those who are fairly younger. One study finds that 55 % of U. S. TikTok users are between the ages of 18 and 34. Additionally, TikTok played a significant role in the 2024 presidential vote, with Donald Trump praising the program and credited with enabling him to appeal to younger voters.

The Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law last month, is the source of the legitimate dispute over TikTok. ByteDance Ltd., a privately held company in China that is the family of TikTok Inc., an American business that runs TikTok in the United States, is required by Chinese laws to “assist or cooperate with ] knowledge job” by the Chinese government and to grant access to the Chinese government. That agreement has sparked concerns among American officials about data protection and national security.
The Act is illegal, according to TikTok Inc., and a group of TikTok people and designers who claim it is infringing on the First Amendment exclusively. They assert that it is” economically infeasible” for TikTok to be sold within the stipulated time frame of 270 time. They also contend that the Act burdens content creation, material restraint, and various expressions of ideas and views that are protected by the First Amendment because it functions as a restrictions. TikTok more asserts that the concerns about national protection are being overstated because it is “unlikely” that the Chinese government may require the business to move over user data.
The U. S. Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit reviewed the case and next fortnight held the Act is legal. The Act was carefully written to address the government’s national security concerns regarding the administration’s efforts to stop Chinese data collection and associated operations.

The Supreme Court agreed. In a per curiam opinion—which is Latin for” by the Court” and is used when the author isn’t identified—the Court held the Act satisfies democratic scrutiny under the First Amendment. One of the arguments made is that the restrictions is glad natural, meaning it doesn’t discriminate against conversation based on a particular viewpoint or place. Instead, the moratorium reflects” a foreign opponent’s control over the platform”.
In contrast, the mind underscored the government’s content-neutral explanation: blocking China from” collecting large amounts of sensitive information from 170 million U. S. TikTok people”. As the Court sees it, such a rational “is decidedly content agnostic” since it is unrelated to the speech’s content. Instead, the concern is driven by concerns about privacy and national security.
The Court also reasoned that TikTok’s” special characteristics”, particularly with respect to foreign adversary’s ability to use TikTok to obtain U. S. users ‘ data, is a logical justification for the Act. The Court urged that the national security concerns raised by TikTok are not generally applicable to social media platforms ( such as Facebook, X, Snapchat, etc. ) and thus do not bear on other platforms ‘ data collection.
While TikTok is scheduled to be banned on Sunday, there may be other developments that could occur before or not until Sunday that could prevent or expedite the platform’s restoration.
One is when Biden signs a bill into law that repeals the Act or delays its implementation. U. S. Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass. ) has proposed a bill that would delay implementation.
Even though he signed the Act into law and his Justice Department defended it in court, Biden could play a significant role in getting it punted on his own. The Associated Press reports that Biden won’t carry out the ban on Sunday and will leave enforcement concerns to Trump, who will take the oath of office the following day. Although it’s not a good arrangement given that the Act is still on the books, the president has the authority to veto the law. If keeping TikTok accessible is technically prohibited ( even if the law prohibiting it is not enforced at the time ), Apple and Google would have to consider whether to pull it from their app stores.

The president is also permitted to grant a one-time extension of up to 90 days under the terms of the Act, provided the president certifies to Congress that there has been progress toward a divestment. For Congress and Trump to work together on a divestiture or consider repealing the Act, within the 90 days. Additionally, it would likely give Apple and Google the assurance that TikTok won’t be removed from their app stores right away. Although the ban starts on Sunday, it means there could still be a disruption if Trump invokes it, Biden could invoke it over the next few days or Trump could as soon as Monday.
More controversially, Trump ( or Biden ) could issue an executive order delaying the Act or simply declaring that TikTok is lawful despite the Act and despite the Supreme Court’s decision. However, an executive order can’t override a statute, meaning a conflicting executive order on TikTok could spark other legal challenges.
Trump claimed on Friday that he and Chinese President Xi Jinping had a “very good” call and that he and Xi Jinping had made it. Trump stated that he anticipates working with his counterpart on issues like TikTok. Reading between the lines, it seems as though TikTok might not experience a long slumber on Sunday.