WASHINGTON – President-elect Donald Trump tells the Supreme Court he can reach a deal that will resolve the national security dispute over TikTok and preserve the video site for 170 million Americans.
All the justices need to do, he says, is step aside and suspend a pending law that could shut down TikTok on Jan. 19, a day before Trump takes office again.
“President Trump alone has the deep dealmaking expertise, electoral mandate and political will to negotiate a solution to save the platform,” his lawyer said A friend of the court filed a brief Friday Night.
His plan could work, at least to buy more time.
The judges had agreed to make a quick decision on the potentially significant issue surrounding social media and freedom of expression.
“I think the court will probably see a lot of benefit in issuing a stay and very little harm,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Berkeley law dean. “The case raises a novel and very difficult First Amendment question. “Never before has the government sought to ban a communications medium, but there is also a history of judicial deference to national security claims.”
Before Trump's intervention, TikTok appeared to be facing an uphill battle in court.
The House of Representatives and the Senate had passed a bill with large bipartisan majorities that would separate the platform from its Chinese owner or shut it down in that country.
President Biden signed the bill into law in April. And according to its provisions, it should come into force in 270 days.
Although the justices are not afraid to strike down federal regulations, they have concerns about overturning a congressional order, particularly one based on threats to national security.
The US Court of Appeals in Washington cited national security when it upheld the law earlier this month. In a 3-0 decision, the justices said the law does not target speech or expression. Rather, the judges said, lawmakers were convinced that the Chinese parent company could collect personal data from millions of Americans.
If the law were to take effect on January 19, Apple, Oracle and other US companies would have faced hefty civil fines if they continued to work with TikTok.
Trump attorney D. John Sauer submitted a friend-of-the-court letter that differed in tone and content from all others. Instead of commenting on the question of the 1st Amendment The judges agreed to a decisionhe explained why Trump was better suited to decide this.
“With his historic victory on November 5, 2024, President Trump received a strong electoral mandate from American voters to protect the free speech of all Americans – including the 170 million Americans who use TikTok,” he wrote. “Moreover, President Trump is one of the most powerful, prolific and influential users of social media in history.”
Sauer pointed out that Trump has 14.7 million followers on TikTok and argued that the president-elect is well positioned “to appreciate the importance of TikTok as a unique medium for freedom of expression, including key political expression.”
He also wrote that as the founder of another social media platform, Truth Social, Trump “has detailed insight into the extraordinary government power sought to be wielded in this case – the power of the federal government to effectively shut down a social network .” media platform preferred by tens of millions of Americans.”
“Given these interests – and, most importantly, his overarching responsibility for the national security and foreign policy of the United States – President Trump opposes a ban on TikTok in the United States at this time and seeks ways to resolve the issues at hand. “political means once he takes office.”
In 2020, Trump expressed concern about TikTok because of its Chinese ownership. Lawmakers later heard secret briefings that convinced them that foreign ownership posed a threat.
But by the time the law was passed, Trump had already switched sides. He said he believes TikTok helped him win the support of young voters.
“TikTok has had an impact, so let’s take a look at it,” he told reporters two weeks ago. “I have a little warm spot in my heart.”
His lawyer Sauer drew criticism from some legal experts a year ago because he boldly claimed that Trump, as a former president, enjoyed absolute immunity from prosecution for his official actions during his term in office.
But in July, he won a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling that gave him and Trump what he wanted.
Sauer will now represent Trump and his government before the Supreme Court as US Attorney General.
He didn't say exactly what the court should do now, only that it should “consider delaying the statutory deadline to give the new administration more breathing room” and that a provision in the law allows for a 90-day extension before it takes effect provided.
The court asked for responses to the competing briefs by next Friday. Two hours of argument were scheduled for January 10th.
It is not certain whether the justices will easily comply with Trump's request.
Two weeks ago, former Trump lawyer Noel Francisco filed an appeal on behalf of TikTok, asking the justices to put the law on hold for a short period of time. But the justices brushed aside that suggestion and said they would decide whether the divestment law violated the 1st Amendment.
“I'm skeptical that Trump's intervention will make a difference,” said Alan Rozenshtein, a law professor at the University of Minnesota who has written about the upcoming law.
He noted that the Supreme Court rejected TikTok's request for a stay of the law because it believed that TikTok could not meet the requirements for a stay: a reasonable chance of winning on the merits.
“Trump’s argument doesn’t change that,” he said. “It may be bad luck for TikTok (and Trump) that the law goes into effect the day before the inauguration, but such is life.”