top of page

TikTok and the First Amendment: A Deep Dive into the Supreme Court's Analysis

TikTok Ban

The Supreme Court's decision in TikTok Inc. v. Garland addresses complex constitutional questions at the intersection of national security and free speech. Below, we explore the procedural posture of the case, the legal reasoning of the Court, and the broader implications of its findings.


Procedural Posture

The controversy arose under the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACAA), which sought to sever foreign control of applications deemed to pose national security risks. TikTok and ByteDance, along with U.S.-based TikTok users, challenged the Act, asserting violations of their First Amendment rights.

The D.C. Circuit Court upheld the Act, applying heightened scrutiny and determining it was narrowly tailored to address compelling government interests. TikTok and its co-petitioners sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court. In a highly expedited process—granting certiorari less than a week after the application— the Court heard arguments and issued its opinion within a month.


Legal Analysis


1. Threshold Question: First Amendment Applicability

The Court first examined whether the Act triggered First Amendment scrutiny. While the Act did not explicitly regulate expressive activity, the petitioners argued it disproportionately burdened expressive conduct, including content creation, curation, and consumption on TikTok.

The Court acknowledged these expressive dimensions but declined to create new grounds for First Amendment scrutiny. Instead, it assumed the Act implicated First Amendment protections without definitively deciding the issue.


2. Level of Scrutiny

The Court determined that the Act was content-neutral and subject to intermediate scrutiny, rejecting arguments for strict scrutiny. The TikTok-specific designation was justified by unique national security risks posed by its ownership and data practices, not by any disagreement with the platform’s content. The Court emphasized that the Act targeted the collection and potential misuse of user data, not the messages shared on TikTok.


3. Tailoring and Governmental Interests

Under intermediate scrutiny, the Act must further an important governmental interest without unnecessarily burdening speech. The Court found that:

  • Compelling Interest: The government’s concerns about data collection by ByteDance—potentially accessible by the Chinese government—were well-documented and reasonable. This justified congressional action to prevent espionage and safeguard sensitive data.

  • Narrow Tailoring: The Act imposed a conditional ban, allowing TikTok to operate if it severed ties with its foreign owner. Alternative measures, such as enhanced disclosures or data-sharing restrictions, were deemed insufficient to mitigate risks effectively.

The Court deferred heavily to legislative findings, emphasizing the deference owed to Congress in national security matters, especially where predictive judgments are required.


4. Impact on Expression

The Court acknowledged the Act’s substantial impact on TikTok users but found the burden proportional to the national security risks addressed. Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence emphasized that expressive associations with TikTok were burdened but ultimately justified by the significant threats posed by foreign control.


Broader Implications

The decision underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach to balancing national security against constitutional freedoms, particularly in the digital age. It signals to Congress and the executive that narrowly tailored, evidence-backed regulations in the name of security are likely to withstand judicial scrutiny, even when they touch upon expressive activity.

However, the case also raises concerns about potential overreach and the sufficiency of alternative, less restrictive measures. It invites further debate about the role of legislative and judicial oversight in regulating tech platforms and protecting free speech.

For a full copy of the Supreme Court’s decision, see TikTok Inc. v. Garland.

What are your thoughts on the implications of this ruling? Share your perspective below.



©2025 East West General Counsel. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between East West General Counsel and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of East West General Counsel.

6 views

Commenti


  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • Linkedin
  • Facebook
  • TikTok
  • X
  • Spotify

ALL THINGS LEGAL IN PLAIN ENGLISH

© 2017 - 2025 East West General Counsel. All Rights Reserved.

This website is governed by the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the information contained on this site is intended for informational and marketing purposes, and DOES NOT constitute legal advice. Viewing the website does not create an attorney/client relationship.

bottom of page