The closing written arguments on Friday from both sides in the significant clash at the Supreme Court regarding a measure that could close down TikTok sharply disputed China’s influence over the site and the role of the First Amendment in evaluating the law.
The briefs, filed on a rushed schedule set by the justices, are part of a high-stakes showdown over the government’s demand that ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, sell the app’s operations in the United States or shut it down. The Supreme Court will hear arguments at a special session next Friday to resolve the case before the law’s Jan. 19 deadline.
The court’s ruling, expected this month, will determine the future of TikTok, a widely used platform that provides personalized short videos to users. TikTok has become a key source of information and entertainment, especially for younger audiences.
A brief filed on behalf of a group of TikTok users stated, “Rarely if ever has the court confronted a free-speech case that matters to so many people. 170 million Americans use TikTok on a regular basis for communication, entertainment, and news. If the government prevails, users in America will lose access to billions of videos on the platform.”
The briefs only briefly mentioned President-elect Donald J. Trump’s unusual request to temporarily block the law last week so he can address the matter once in office.
The law sets Jan. 19 as the deadline for TikTok to be sold or shut down, a day before Mr. Trump’s inauguration.
His brief expressed concern over the timing interfering with his ability to manage foreign policy and protect citizens’ First Amendment rights on the popular social-media platform.
TikTok’s brief emphasized that the First Amendment safeguards Americans’ access to foreign speech, even propaganda, advocating for disclosure of the speech’s source as an alternative to censorship.
TikTok’s brief argued that disclosure is the best approach to address concerns about misleading information being spread, including in foreign-affairs and national-security contexts.
The users’ brief echoed this sentiment, indicating that disclosing foreign influence is essential for the public to make informed decisions about the content they consume.
However, the government contended that a generic disclosure requirement would be ineffective in addressing the issue of foreign influence over content.
In a previous brief in the case TikTok v. Garland, No. 24-656, the government argued that foreign propaganda can be addressed without violating the Constitution.
The users’ brief challenged the government’s assertion, pointing out that the U.S. allowed the publication of Soviet propaganda during the Cold War.
TikTok defended itself against accusations of censorship or content manipulation at the direction of the Chinese government, stating that they never removed or restricted content in other countries at China’s request.