Alan B. Morrison. Courtesy photo TikTok's Case Is a Winner—But Perhaps Not on the First Amendment
There are reasons why the First Amendment may not be TikTok's strongest claim, and instead why the court should strike down the act as a violation of the constitutional prohibition on Congress passing Bills of Attainder.
July 25, 2024 at 08:00 AM
7 minute read
Commentary
TikTok is an online platform that allows individuals anywhere in the world to create, share, and view videos on subjects of their choice. The owner of 21% of the company is a Chinese citizen, and beginning in 2020, the federal government began to express concerns that data gathered from its American users, currently numbering 170 million annually, might be given to the Chinese government, which may also be using TikTok to disseminate Chinese propaganda to unsuspecting American citizens. Congress's answer, which President Joe Biden signed into law on April 23, 2024, is the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. Its real name should have been the Putting TikTok Out of Business Act, because that is what it is intended to do.
The act allowed TikTok to challenge it in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which it immediately did. TikTok filed its brief on June 18, and the government's response is due July 26, with oral argument set for Sept. 16. The reason for the haste is that unless TikTok can comply with the statutory option to sell the business to someone else by Jan. 19—a practical impossibility—TikTok will have to stop operating, with its shareholders and one billion users worldwide left with nothing.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
The Marble Palace Blog: Supreme Court Books You Should Read in 2025
Trending Stories
- 1The New Rules of AI: Part 2—Designing and Implementing Governance Programs
- 2Plaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
- 3As Litigation Finance Industry Matures, Links With Insurance Tighten
- 4The Gold Standard: Remembering Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer
- 5NJ Supreme Court Clarifies Affidavit of Merit Requirement for Doctor With Dual Specialties
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
