TikTok is set to appear before the US Supreme Court on Friday in a final attempt to overturn a ban, in a case that will test the balance between national security and free speech.
The popular social media platform is challenging a law passed last year, which mandates that the company must either separate from its Chinese parent company or face a ban from the US by January 19.
The US government argues that, without a sale, TikTok could be exploited by China for espionage and political manipulation.
However, TikTok denies these claims, asserting that it has been unfairly targeted and that the law infringes on the free speech rights of its 170 million American users.
Lower courts have sided with the government, but the case became more complex last month when President-elect Donald Trump intervened, requesting a pause in the law’s enforcement to allow time for a potential deal.
Analysts have noted that while it’s uncertain what the Supreme Court will decide, overturning the previous ruling—even with support from a future president—would be unusual.
“When you have a real government interest pitted against a real constitutional value, it ends up being a very close case,” said Cardozo School of Law professor Saurabh Vishnubhakat.
“But in such close cases, the government often gets the benefit of the doubt.”
A decision by Supreme Court could be made within days.
Congress passed the law against TikTok last year with support from both the Democratic and Republican parties. The moment marked the culmination of years of concern about the wildly popular platform, which is known for its viral videos and traction among young people.
The legislation does not forbid use of the app, but would require tech giants such as Apple and Google to stop offering it and inhibit updates, which analysts suggest would kill it over time.
TikTok is already banned on government devices in several countries, including the UK, and faces potential full bans in other nations, such as India.
The US government argues that TikTok poses a “grave” national security threat because the Chinese government could pressure its parent company, ByteDance, to provide user data or manipulate the content shown to users to further Chinese interests.
In December, a three-judge appeals court upheld the law, citing China’s history of leveraging private companies for its goals and asserting that the measure was justified as part of a broader effort to address a well-documented national security threat.
TikTok has consistently denied any influence from the Chinese Communist Party, claiming the law violates the First Amendment rights of its users.
The platform has asked the Supreme Court to strike down the law as unconstitutional or halt its enforcement so that the legislation, which it argues is based on “inaccurate, flawed, and hypothetical information,” can be reviewed.
Trump is set to take office the day after the law is due to take effect. While he initially called for a ban on the app during his first term, his stance shifted during his campaign.
The brief filed by Trump’s lawyers late last month did not take a position on the legal dispute but described the case as presenting an “unprecedented, novel, and difficult tension” between free speech rights and national security concerns.
The filing emphasized that Trump, following his election win, “opposes banning TikTok” and seeks to resolve the issue through political means once in office.
This filing came just under two weeks after Trump met with TikTok’s CEO at Mar-a-Lago.
One of Trump’s major donors, Jeff Yass of Susquehanna International Group, holds a significant stake in TikTok. However, Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, supports a ban on the app.
Investors interested in buying TikTok include Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and former LA Dodgers owner Frank McCourt.
Peter Choharis, an attorney with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which filed a brief backing the US government’s position, said it was difficult to predict the court’s decision. He noted that with a conservative majority, the court has recently overturned several long-standing precedents.
But he said even if Trump was granted the opportunity to try to work out a deal, he expected a ban eventually.
“I don’t see any president, including future President Trump, being able to resolve this in a way that’s satisfactory for US national security because I don’t think ByteDance will agree to it,” he said.
The prospect of losing TikTok in the US has prompted outcry from many users, some of whom filed their own legal action last year.
In their filing they said the decision that TikTok could be shuttered “because ideas on that platform might persuade Americans of one thing or another – even of something potentially harmful to our democracy – is utterly antithetical to the First Amendment”.
Other groups weighing in on the dispute include the American Civil Liberties Union and Freedom of the Press Foundation, which argued that the US had failed to present “credible evidence of ongoing or imminent harm” caused by the social media app.
Mr Choharis said the government had a right to take measures to defend itself, arguing that the fight was not “about speech” or “content” but about the Chinese government’s role.
“It’s about control and how the Chinese Communist Party specifically, and the Chinese government more generally, pursue strategic aims using many internet firms and especially social media companies – specifically including TikTok,” he said.