The U.S. Supreme Court is deliberating on a controversial law mandating the divestiture of TikTok by its Chinese parent company ByteDance or its outright ban by January 19. This measure, justified by national security concerns, has sparked intense debate over the balance between government power and free speech protections under the First Amendment. TikTok’s legal team warned that endorsing such a law could set a precedent allowing Congress to target other companies with foreign ties.

TikTok, used by approximately 170 million Americans, faces allegations that its ties to ByteDance could allow the Chinese government to exploit user data or manipulate content. During Friday’s arguments, Noel Francisco, representing TikTok and ByteDance, cautioned that the law’s broad implications could extend to other companies, citing examples like Congress potentially controlling U.S. media firms with foreign ownership. Meanwhile, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar defended the law, arguing it was essential to force ByteDance to act on divestiture before the ban’s deadline.

Critics question the law’s selective focus on TikTok while ignoring other Chinese-owned platforms such as the e-commerce app Temu, which serves millions of U.S. users. Jeffrey Fisher, representing TikTok content creators, argued that this selective targeting undermines the national security rationale. He pointed out that if Congress were genuinely concerned about data misuse by foreign entities, it would scrutinize a broader range of platforms.

The court also grappled with the operational implications of the ban. If enforced, TikTok would no longer be available for download on Apple and Google app stores, leaving current users with an app that would degrade over time. Francisco likened the government’s concerns about content manipulation on TikTok to similar allegations against mainstream media outlets, emphasizing that such matters fall under protected speech.

The decision comes at a politically charged moment, with President Biden defending the ban while outgoing President Trump advocates delaying implementation for potential resolution under his incoming administration. Legal experts suggest the Supreme Court’s ruling could redefine the limits of government intervention in private companies, especially those tied to foreign nations, and set a significant precedent for the tech and media sectors.