TikTok v. Garland

TikTok v. Garland
Argued January 10, 2025
Decided January 17, 2025
Full case nameTikTok, Inc. et al., Petitioners v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General
Brian Firebaugh, et al., Petitioners v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General
Docket nos.24-656
24-657
Citations604 U.S. ___ (more)
ArgumentOral argument
DecisionOpinion
Case history
PriorPetition for review denied. TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd. v. Garland, No. 24-1113 (D.C. Cir 2024).
Questions presented
Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment.
Holding
The provisions of the Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
Per curiam
ConcurrenceSotomayor
ConcurrenceGorsuch (in judgement)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend I; Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act

TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, 604 U.S. ___ (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case brought by ByteDance Ltd. and TikTok challenging the constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) based on the Freedom of Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the Bill of Attainder Clause of Article One, Section Nine, and the Due Process Clause and Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The case was consolidated with Firebaugh v. Garland, a lawsuit TikTok content creators filed which also challenged the law.

Citing national security concerns, the U.S. Congress in April 2024 passed PAFACA which prohibits the hosting and distribution of apps determined by the President to present a significant national security threat if they are made by social media companies owned by foreign nationals or parent companies from countries designated as U.S. foreign adversaries, unless such companies are divested from the foreign entities. The law specifically named Chinese company ByteDance Ltd. and TikTok as "foreign adversary controlled". The deadline for their divestment was January 19, 2025.

ByteDance sued the federal government following passage of PAFACA, asserting the law violated the First and Fifth Amendments. A panel of judges from the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the company's claims about the constitutionality of the law in December 2024 and declined to grant a temporary injunction. ByteDance then sought review by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari for TikTok's appeal on an expedited schedule, and heard oral arguments on January 10, 2025, nine days before the law's divestment deadline. In a per curiam decision released on January 17, 2025, the Court ruled that the law was constitutional, as Congress had shown the law satisfies intermediate scrutiny review based on their concerns related to national security.