As President-elect Donald Trump again inserted himself into the debate surrounding the platform’s fate last weekend.
The person who initially sounded the alarm is now urging the Supreme Court to intervene before a crucial deadline takes effect on January 19. By April 2024, lawmakers may force a legislative ban on “overseas adversary managed purposes” within the digital stores of major players like Apple and Google, putting pressure on ByteDance’s TikTok arm: either invest heavily to keep its US presence or risk having the app blocked in the country.
Amidst concerns over nationwide security, the legislation garnered strong bipartisan support as a result of pervasive worries about Chinese government surveillance and interference, yet its passage remains threatened by First Amendment challenges. Prior to President Trump’s weekend request, the Supreme Court had been operating on an expedited schedule, poised to consider oral arguments as early as January 10.
Now, President Trump is calling for a temporary halt in investigations so that he can thoroughly investigate and determine the accuracy of a certain matter.
Trump’s latest claim is a further demonstration of his anxiety to justify his actions in the context of. The potential shift in Senator Rick Scott’s stance on Medicare could stem from a variety of factors, including the upcoming election, which is something he has explicitly highlighted, as well as the influence of one of his largest donors, Jeff Yass. Despite unclear motivations, he has repeatedly indicated his willingness to fight for the app’s continued existence.
I have a small hot spot in my chest. I’ll be sincere,”
Should the Supreme Court uphold the law, several avenues could be explored by Trump to salvage the app, according to Alan Rozenshtein, a former Justice Department lawyer speaking with Vox. The language used in the coverage provides President Trump with considerable latitude for interpretation, allowing him to potentially instruct his counsel not to enforce the law or claim that ByteDance has divested from the app without actually doing so.
We spoke with Professor David Rozenshtein, a law expert at the University of Minnesota, about the potential implications of various national security scenarios he has studied, exploring the likelihood of each outcome. The President-elect possesses sweeping powers that he could leverage to safeguard TikTok’s interests.
The interview was edited and condensed to enhance readability.
The Supreme Court’s ability to delay a law is often misinterpreted as “staying” it. In reality, the court can issue a temporary injunction, which halts the law’s enforcement until the court makes a final decision on its constitutionality.
As a result of the Supreme Court’s mandate, it would seem that something could be done; nonetheless, this is not necessarily feasible under present statutory frameworks.
What specifically would you like me to elaborate on? The concept, its relevance, or perhaps provide more context?
To temporarily halt legislation’s implementation and prevent its effective date, one must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success based on the merits. It’s insufficient to merely state that a law is taking effect and request a delay without just cause; rather, one must demonstrate a compelling reason, such as “I’m highly likely to prevail in court anyway?” As I take a moment to reconsider, I’ll convince myself that ultimately, my efforts will prevail.
Trump’s claim isn’t fundamentally about the likelihood of repeal, but rather it is. He seeks the luxury of contemplation to deliberate on a unique course of action.
It’s not that straightforward.
Can the Supreme Court deliver a verdict before the January 19 deadline if they decide to overturn or pause the legislation?
The Supreme Court’s decision on the case may unfold as follows: after conducting oral arguments, they will deliberate and ultimately cast their votes. It appears likely that there are at least five, and potentially more, votes in support of passing this legislation. The Supreme Court typically announces its docket decisions within a short timeframe – either immediately, the next day, or in approximately two weeks. Following their remarks, they will indicate that a perspective is being compiled.
The answer will come soon enough. We won’t know the explanation for a while.
Can users still access the app even after a ban takes effect on January 19?
The legislation bars app stores from disseminating the app, but does not obligate them to access your phone or remove the app. When you download and install our mobile application, you’ll gain instant access to its features and benefits.
The issue appears to have broader implications for customers of Oracle’s cloud services. When you visit TikTok.com, your data is processed and stored on Oracle servers located within the United States. The database system that you’re currently utilizing is owned and managed by Oracle. On January 20, Oracle is likely to shut down its computer systems due to the requirement.
What occurs then? TikTok reportedly has the capability to migrate its services from US-based cloud infrastructure providers to international alternatives if a potential shutdown were imminent, raising a multitude of technical concerns.
If there are no updates to TikTok over time, it will undoubtedly become outdated and unusable.
If the Supreme Court upholds the legislation, I envision Trump utilizing executive powers to salvage the app. He might direct the Department of Justice to pursue an appeal or intervene on behalf of the app’s developers, citing concerns over First Amendment rights and the potential chilling effect on free speech. Additionally, he could instruct relevant federal agencies to re-examine their policies and guidelines, potentially creating a more favorable environment for the app’s continued operation.
So, as a first step, he could try getting Congress to repeal the legislation? It’s likely his most straightforward and convenient option, but he’ll probably struggle to accomplish it. The legislation was passed with widespread bipartisan support. The President may need to persuade Congress to rescind a decision made less than a year prior, which would be a significant challenge given the lack of recent momentum behind his proposal. It’s unlikely he intends to allocate his political capital on this issue during his initial 100-day period. He’s likely to face significant challenges in getting anything implemented.
The second factor he may consider is instructing his legal representative to refrain from enforcing the law. TikTok’s legislative framework operates by imposing a maximum penalty of $5,000 per individual on app stores and cloud service providers that collaborate with the platform, allowing him to direct prospective Attorney General Pam Bondi to refrain from enforcing the statute. It is within his constitutional authority to consider that type of factor. Despite this consideration, the concern remains that the legislation would still be effective, leaving these companies open to charges of noncompliance. If you’re an ordinary advisor to Apple, and you say, “I learned on Reality Social that Trump isn’t going to implement the legislation,” I’d say undoubtedly don’t bank on that for obvious reasons?
If the third factor cannot be interpreted in a way that supports the government’s claim of applicability, he may declare that the legislation does not apply. To accomplish this effectively, he should leverage the existence of legislation that clearly outlines the criteria for a professional divestiture.
The initial phrase, “the President determines,” warrants scrutiny, potentially yielding insights into the statutory framework when examined closely.
The statute vests significant discretion in the President to determine what constitutes a “certified divestiture”. This could enable the President, particularly if ByteDance reorganizes its assets or transfers certain holdings from Firm A to Firm B, to argue that ByteDance no longer owns TikTok.
Whether the assertion is factually accurate is debatable; nonetheless, it may prove challenging for Trump to resist the temptation of exerting his will under this clause, regardless of its lack of foundation in reality. Is that the key you’re able to use most easily that will be the easiest?
The potential buyer may also aim to facilitate a sale. The issue hasn’t touched on the demand side yet? While it’s true that some American consumers may be eager to buy TikTok, It’s on the provision facet. Will the Chinese language authorities permit ByteDance to market TikTok, algorithmically or otherwise? As Donald Trump navigates the complex diplomatic landscape, he embarks on a high-stakes mission to forge a lasting understanding with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Will Trump prove capable of achieving this goal? It’s unclear whether he wants to take on this task.
If there was a problem to Trump making a declaration that divestiture has occurred, but it hasn’t actually occurred, what would that appear to be? It appears that such an action could potentially constitute perjury. What are the logical origins of this concept, and on what foundation do they rest?
The statute provides a role for the President in determining divestiture, but does not empower them to fabricate information.
The durable component, once a part of the device, is now presenting its own justification for being considered as the primary entity in this situation. In U.S. jurisprudence, there exists a fundamental principle known as standing, which mandates that prior to filing a lawsuit in a federal court, one must possess sufficient legal interest or stake to assert a claim against another party. You must have been specifically and personally harmed by a single, concrete occurrence.
What’s the anticipated impact of this activity on individuals involved? It’s unlikely that the change would affect just one specific individual. It’s not Congress. Two potential classes to explore are in my consideration set. If Mark Zuckerberg decides to sue rivals over TikTok’s dominance, he may claim “I own Instagram Reels personally.” However, rivals are allowed to sue if they believe the federal government is illegally favouring a competitor of theirs; this would require Zuckerberg to take on Donald Trump and contravene the Valley’s unwritten rule of not provoking the President.
Were they to have a voice in the legal system? Apple and Oracle may potentially sue to ensure that the divestiture proceeds without issue, but to clarify matters, they aim to seek a declaratory judgment to confirm their legal obligations. However, this could also lead to lawsuits and make it more likely that Trump would lose, which might infuriate him. There exists a limited pool of people who might consider filing a lawsuit, often inventing alternative reasons to justify their decision not to pursue legal action in the first place.
In a theoretical scenario where litigation proceeds, I envision a potentially lucrative outcome that successfully upholds the law.
The perceived impact of Trump’s actions depends crucially on whether his move appears to involve a genuine divestment, with no actual consequences resulting from it. It’s highly probable that the courts would invalidate that decision. If ByteDance’s actions plausibly give rise to concerns that a divestiture has occurred on the periphery, I might consider allowing courts to defer to the President’s judgment, suggesting that determining whether TikTok is managed by a Chinese company is a highly fact-specific inquiry that may warrant deferral. It has significant implications for national security and international coverage decisions. The U.S. Congress entrusted the President with a specific responsibility, which is being fulfilled as per his constitutional authority. We’re not going to speculate on what could have been.
As I gaze into the horizon, I foresee a landscape where uncertainty reigns supreme, and the threads of fate are increasingly tangled. The path ahead appears shrouded in mist, with no clear signs pointing to a definite outcome.
It is likely that the Supreme Court will validate the law in its current form. Following this unprecedented confluence of events – including the potential sale of a platform, possibly without algorithmic oversight, and Trump’s declarations – it is possible that something akin to TikTok could continue to exist in the US, though its precise form remains uncertain.