A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a mid-January deadline in a federal law requiring TikTok to be sold or banned in the United States. a request from the company to halt enforcement until the Supreme Court reviews its challenge to the statute.
Lawyers for TikTok and its Chinese parent company ByteDance are expected to appeal to the Supreme Court.
It’s unclear whether the nation’s highest court will take up the case, though some legal experts have said they expect the justices to intervene because of the kinds of new questions it raises about social media, national security and the First Amendment . TikTok is also looking for a potential lifeline from President-elect Donald Trump, who promised to “save” the short-form video platform during the presidential campaign.
Lawyers for TikTok and ByteDance had sought the order after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with the U.S. government and rejected their challenge to the law.
The statute, which was signed by President Joe Biden earlier this year, requires ByteDance to sell TikTok to an approved buyer due to national security concerns or face a ban in the US.
The US has said it considers TikTok a national security risk because ByteDance could be forced by Chinese authorities to hand over US user data or manipulate content on the platform for Beijing’s interests. TikTok has denied these claims, arguing that the government’s case rests on hypothetical future risks rather than proven facts.
In the request filed last week, lawyers for TikTok and ByteDance had asked for a “modest delay” in enforcing the law so that the Supreme Court could review the case and the new Trump administration can “explain its position” on the could determine the issue.
If the law is not reversed, the two companies have said the popular app will be shut down on January 19, just a day before Trump returns to power. More than 170 million US users would be affected, the companies say.
The Justice Department had opposed TikTok’s request for a pause, saying in a court filing last week that the parties had already proposed a schedule “designed for the precise purpose” of having the Supreme Court review the law before this came into effect.
The appeals court ruled on the case on Dec. 6 in accordance with that schedule, the Justice Department filing said.