Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch Cautions That Foreign Adversaries May Take Over TikTok
“A resolute foreign adversary might simply aim to substitute one lost surveillance application with another,” Gorsuch stated.
On Friday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed that foreign adversaries might replace the Chinese-owned TikTok with a comparable application to monitor Americans, as the Supreme Court decided to maintain a ban on the social media platform from app stores.
The incoming Trump administration will face the task of deciding whether to uphold the ban, which is set to take effect on January 19.
“Whether this law will achieve its intended results, I cannot say. A determined foreign adversary may just seek to replace one lost surveillance application with another,” Gorsuch remarked, agreeing with the Supreme Court’s unanimous 9–0 decision to support the ban.
“As time progresses and threats evolve, less extreme and more effective solutions might arise. Even the future of TikTok remains uncertain.”
Friday’s ruling confirmed a law passed by Congress that mandates TikTok to divest from its parent firm, ByteDance, which is based in China and has a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) secretary, or risk being banned from app stores.
Related Stories
In his opinion, Gorsuch stated that he concurred with the Supreme Court’s decision to steer clear of governmental apprehensions regarding how TikTok—an application focused mainly on short video clips—handles its content.
Government attorneys partially argued that TikTok should be prohibited due to the content being shared on the platform, beyond the possible security and privacy risks.
“What one may consider ‘covert content manipulation’ can be viewed by another as ‘editorial discretion,’” the justice said. “Journalists, publishers, and various speakers routinely make less-than-transparent choices about which stories to present and how to present them.”
Mental health advocates have suggested that the app encourages “endless scrolling,” with its “algorithm cleverly designed to engross users into continuously watching one video after another,” based on a 2023 critique from the UK nonprofit The Children’s Society.
The Supreme Court, in its unanimous verdict, affirmed that “there is no doubt that, for over 170 million Americans, TikTok serves as a unique and broad platform for expression, interaction, and community.”
Nonetheless, the court noted that legislators determined it needed to be divested to tackle “well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and ties to a foreign adversary.”
Separately, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a concurring opinion, indicated that she believes there is “no reason to assume without deciding that the Act touches upon the First Amendment, given our precedents which leave no doubt that it does.”
Despite this, the court clarified in its decision that the provisions of the law serve an important governmental interest not related to the suppression of free speech and do not limit free speech more than necessary.
Last year, the legislation mandating TikTok to divest or face a ban was passed with strong bipartisan support in Congress. President Joe Biden signed it into law in April. It allowed TikTok 270 days, or a deadline of this Sunday, to divest or face a U.S. ban. Several nations, including India, have already banned the platform.
ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, has asserted that it will not sell the business, although there has been significant speculation online regarding potential buyers.
On his platform Truth Social, Trump stated that the court’s ruling on Friday was anticipated and that “everyone should honor it,” adding that he will make a decision soon after his inauguration on January 20.
Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) expressed on X that ByteDance has had ample time to sell TikTok to an appropriate entity, claiming that its refusal to sell indicates that the CCP wishes to maintain control over the app.
