The US Supreme Court promotes law on Friday which may result in a TikTok ban in the United States this Sunday.

“There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a unique and broad outlet for expression, a means of engagement, and a source of community,” the court’s unanimous opinion read. . “But Congress determined that the divestiture was necessary to address well-founded national security concerns about TikTok’s data collection practices and ties to a foreign adversary.”

TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the company reportedly plans to close the app for US users on Sunday, the deadline for an extension.

For more than five years, US government officials have tried to ban or force the sale of TikTok, accusing the Chinese-owned company of sharing American user data with the Chinese government and filling the pro-China propaganda feeds. Congress and agencies such as the FBI have not publicly provided much information that corroborates these allegations, but have pursued various methods of banning TikTok.

In 2020, former president Donald Trump tried first on TikTok by failed executive order. Finally, President Joe Biden signed a bill on April 24, 2024 that requires TikTok’s parent company, Byteance, to sell the app to an American owner by January 19 or be removed from app stores. US app. In a rush to prevent the ban, TikTok and a group of creators quickly filed lawsuits against the Department of Justice, arguing that the law, the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, violated their rights. First Amendment rights.

In Friday’s oral argument, TikTok attorney Noel Francisco, and Jeffrey Fisher, who represents the creators, tried to drive home that argument. For the government, solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the law did not violate the defendants’ free speech rights, and instead cut off the app from Bytedance and Chinese influence.

“Undoubtedly, the remedy chosen by Congress and the President here is extraordinary,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion. “Whether this law will succeed in achieving its objectives, I do not know. A determined foreign adversary may seek to replace a missing surveillance application with another. As time passes and threats evolve, less dramatic and more effective solutions may emerge.

In its opinion, the court dismissed TikTok’s central argument that the law violated the company’s free speech rights, writing that the “challenged provisions are facially neutral.” The judges wrote that the law does not regulate the speech of TikTok or its creators, and instead targeted the app and Bytedance’s corporate structure.

“It is not clear that the Act itself directly regulates protected expressive activity, or conduct that has an expressive component,” the opinion reads. “And it directly regulates Bytedance Ltd. and TikTok only through divestiture requirements.”

The judges noted that their decision should be seen as “narrowly focused” and strictly applicable to TikTok. “TikTok’s scale and susceptibility to foreign adversary control, along with the large amount of sensitive data collected on the platform, justify the difference in treatment to address the Government’s national security concerns,” the opinion reads.