• Source: TikTok v. Garland

      • TikTok, et al. v. Garland is a lawsuit brought by social media company TikTok against the United States government. Chinese internet technology company ByteDance and its subsidiary TikTok allege that the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) violates the Freedom of Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the Bill of Attainder Clause of Article One, Section Nine, and the Due Process Clause and Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The law bans or requires divestment of apps owned by foreign corporations from, or by corporations owned by foreign nationals from, countries designated as U.S. foreign adversaries.
      On December 6, 2024, a panel of judges on the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the company's claims about the constitutionality of the law and upheld it. On December 16, TikTok appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.


      Background



      President Joe Biden signed PAFACA into law on April 24, 2024, codified as 15 U.S.C. § 9901. The law gives TikTok's Chinese parent company, ByteDance, 270 days to sell TikTok. If ByteDance fails to do so, TikTok will face a ban from U.S. app stores and internet hosting services, limiting new downloads and access to its content. The deadline for the sale is January 19, 2025, but Biden can extend it by another 90 days if progress is made, potentially giving TikTok up to a year before a ban is enforced. In addition to TikTok and ByteDance, the ban applies to a "covered company controlled by a foreign adversary and determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States ..."


      Lawsuit


      On May 7, 2024, TikTok and ByteDance filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging the legislation primarily on First Amendment grounds, alleging that the forced divestiture or ban of the platform would violate the free speech rights of the company and its users. The company accused the U.S. government of operating on "hypothetical" national security concerns, contending that it has not outlined any credible security threat posed by the platform in an adequate manner, and has not explained why TikTok "should be excluded from evaluation under the standards Congress concurrently imposed on every other platform." The lawsuit also alleged that the Chinese government would not permit ByteDance to include the algorithm that has been the "key to the success of TikTok in the United States."


      Proceedings


      In the lawsuit, TikTok requested a declaratory judgment to prevent the PAFACA from being enforced. The Court of Appeals expedited the case, setting oral arguments for September 2024, and a decision by December 2024.
      In June 2024, TikTok presented briefs to the court that laid out why the company believes the ban to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. TikTok argued any divestiture or separation would take years and the law runs afoul of Americans' free speech rights. The brief included a 90-page proposal about plans by TikTok to address American national security concerns. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) responded the following month, in which it asked the court to reject TikTok's legal challenge. The DoJ argued the law is aimed at addressing national security concerns, not speech, and is aimed at China's ability to exploit TikTok to access Americans’ sensitive personal information. The DOJ alleged that ByteDance employees in China obtained sensitive information on U.S. users, such as views on abortion, religion, and gun control, from overseas TikTok employees through Lark. In August and September, 2024, DOJ filed classified documents with the court to outline additional security concerns regarding ByteDance's ownership of TikTok.
      Oral arguments were held on September 16, 2024.
      On December 6, 2024, the Court of Appeals rejected TikTok's constitutional arguments and found that the law does not “contravene the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” nor does it “violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws.” “The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” Judge Ginsburg wrote in the court's decision. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.” On December 9, TikTok and ByteDance filed a motion for an injunction in the case to allow the app to continue operating until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to hear an appeal of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruling. The appellate court rejected the motion on December 13. On the same day, the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party sent letters in reference to the December 6 ruling to the chief executive officers of Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc. to instruct the companies to be prepared to comply with the law by the January 19 deadline. On December 16, TikTok appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.


      See also


      Lawsuits involving TikTok
      United States free speech exceptions


      References




      External links


      Case docket for TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland, 24-1113, (D.C. Cir.) at CourtListener.
      Supreme Court docket for Tiktok v. Garland application for injunction, No. 24A587

    Kata Kunci Pencarian: