Attacked by two justices, lower-court judges and litigants, the 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan keeps getting cited approvingly in the Supreme Court’s decisions.

The company argued that the law, citing potential Chinese threats to the nation’s security, violated its First Amendment rights and those of its 170 million users.

The justices, who asked tough questions of both sides, showed skepticism toward arguments by lawyers for TikTok and its users.

The plaintiffs include a Texas rancher and a hip-hop artist who say banning the app violates their First Amendment rights. TikTok is paying their legal bills.

The justices are expected to rule quickly in the case, which pits national security concerns about China against the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.

The court, which hears arguments on Friday in a challenge to a law banning the app, has issued varying rulings when those two interests clashed.

The briefs, filed a week before oral arguments, offered sharply differing accounts of China’s influence over the site and the role of the First Amendment.

The president-elect took no position on the app’s First Amendment challenge to the law, which sets a Jan. 19 deadline to sell or close the popular platform.

Attempts to restrict pharmaceutical advertisements have failed many times over the years, often on First Amendment grounds.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments next month in First Amendment challenges to laws banning the app and shielding minors from sexual materials on the internet.