WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump has told the Supreme Court that he can settle the national security dispute over TikTok and strike a deal that preserves the video site for the benefit of 170 million Americans.
All the judge needs to do, he said, is to set aside pending legislation that could shut down TikTok on January 19, the day before Trump takes office again.
“Only President Trump has the impeccable deal-making expertise, electoral mandate, and political will to negotiate a resolution that protects his platform,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in a friend brief filed Friday night. mentioned in.
His plan might work, at least to buy time.
The justices had agreed to make swift decisions on potentially serious issues involving social media and free speech.
“Courts would think there would be great benefits and little downside to issuing an injunction,” said Irwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. “This case raises new and very difficult First Amendment issues. The government has never tried to ban communications, but the judiciary raises national security claims. There is a history of respect.”
Before President Trump’s intervention, TikTok appeared to be facing an uphill battle in court.
The House and Senate passed legislation with bipartisan majorities that would require platforms to be separated from their Chinese owners or shut down in the country.
President Biden signed the bill into law in April. According to its terms, it was to take effect within 270 days.
Although the justices are not shy about striking down federal regulations, they are wary of overturning Congress’s laws, especially those based on threats to national security.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington cited national security reasons when upholding the law earlier this month. In a 3-0 ruling, the justices said the law does not cover speech or expression. Rather, the judges said, the lawmakers were confident that the Chinese parent company could collect the personal data of millions of Americans.
Had the law gone into effect on January 19th, Apple, Oracle, and other U.S. companies could face large civil penalties if they continued to work with TikTok.
Mr. Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, filed a brief that differed in tone and content from other court arguments. Rather than consider the First Amendment issues that the justices agreed to decide, he explained why Trump was best placed to decide it.
“Through his historic victory on November 5, 2024, President Trump has delivered on his strong campaign mandate to protect the free speech rights of all Americans, including the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. received from American voters,” he wrote. “Additionally, President Trump is one of the most powerful, prolific, and influential social media users in history.”
Noting that Trump has 14.7 million followers on TikTok, Sauer said the president-elect “appreciates the importance of TikTok as a unique medium of free expression, including core political speech.” He claimed to be in a position.
As the founder of another social media platform, Truth Social, Trump also said he had “a deep perspective on the extraordinary government power that he is attempting to exercise in this case, the power of the federal government to effectively shut down social media.” “I have it,” he wrote. – A media platform supported by tens of millions of Americans. ”
“Given these interests, including, most importantly, his paramount responsibility for U.S. national security and foreign policy, President Trump opposes a ban on TikTok in the United States at this time and is We’re looking for the ability to solve problems.”If he becomes president, that will have political implications. ”
In 2020, President Trump expressed caution against TikTok because it was owned by China. Lawmakers later heard a confidential conference and were convinced that foreign ownership posed risks.
But by the time the law was approved, President Trump had switched sides. He said he believes TikTok has helped him win over younger voters.
“TikTok has had an impact, so we’re looking at it,” he told reporters two weeks ago. “There’s a little bit of warmth in my heart.”
A year ago, Trump’s lawyer, Sauer, drew criticism from some legal experts for boldly claiming that the former president had absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for his actions while in office. I took a bath.
But in July, he and Trump got what they wanted with a 6-3 Supreme Court decision.
Mr. Sauer will now represent Mr. Trump and his administration before the Supreme Court as attorney general.
He did not say exactly what the court should do now, only that the incoming administration “should consider adhering to statutory deadlines to give more grace period.” He said one of the provisions allows for a 90-day extension before it takes effect. .
The court asked for responses to competing briefs by next Friday. A two-hour argument is scheduled for January 10th.
It is unclear whether the justices will immediately comply with Trump’s request.
Two weeks ago, former Trump lawyer Noel Francisco petitioned a judge on behalf of TikTok to briefly put the law on hold. But the justices ignored that suggestion, saying they would decide whether the sale law violates the First Amendment.
“I’m skeptical that President Trump’s intervention will make a difference,” said Alan Rosenstein, a University of Minnesota law professor who has written about the disputed legislation.
He pointed out that the Supreme Court denied TikTok’s request for maintenance because it did not think TikTok could meet the maintenance requirement of a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.
“Mr. Trump’s claims do not change that,” he said. “It may be unfortunate for TikTok (and Trump) that the law goes into effect the day before Inauguration Day, but that’s life.”
