Legal experts, privacy groups and parents alike applauded the Supreme Court's Friday ruling upholding a federal law banning TikTok unless it is divested from its Chinese parent company ByteDance, while others deemed it as "anti-democratic."

The ban is set to go into effect on Sunday.

"There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community," the court wrote in the unsigned ruling. "But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary."

SUPREME COURT APPEARS SKEPTICAL OF BLOCKING US BAN ON TIKTOK: WHAT TO KNOW

Former Vice President Mike Pence turned to X and called the decision "a victory for the privacy and security of the American people."

"This law was the result of a bipartisan cooperation and I commend it's authors and supporters in Congress for enacting this vital law for our national security," he continued. The CCP has been put on notice that the American people’s data is no longer for the taking. The incoming Trump administration must be prepared to uphold this TikTok divestment law and put the privacy and security of America first."

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., likewise said the Supreme Court "correctly rejected TikTok’s lies and propaganda masquerading as legal arguments" in a post on X. 

"ByteDance and its Chinese Communist masters had nine months to sell TikTok before the Sunday deadline," the senator wrote. "The very fact that Communist China refuses to permit its sale reveals exactly what TikTok is: a communist spy app. The Supreme Court correctly rejected TikTok’s lies and propaganda masquerading as legal arguments."

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., said the decision was "unsurprising, and the answer is that the Chinese government needs to give up control of TikTok."

Carrie Severino, President of Judicial Crisis Network, echoed Cotton's sentiments, also saying in a statement that the high court "rightly recognizes the danger of the Chinese Communist Party being able to access and maliciously deploy the data of hundreds of millions of Americans."

READ THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON TIKTOK LAW – APP USERS, CLICK HERE

President Biden notably maintained his stance that he would enforce the law banning the social media app and would instead punt the implementation to President-elect Donald Trump and his incoming administration. 

Severino stated she hopes "that President Trump's incoming administration vigorously enforces this important national security law."

Executive Director of American Parents Coalition Alleigh Marré also posted on X reacting to the holding. "This is a huge win for parents! Kids will be free from TikTok’s poison, its powerful, dangerous algorithm and compromising influences."

"I am incredibly proud to see that the highest court in the land has agreed that our elected officials hold the power to protect our national security from our most powerful foreign adversaries," said Michael Lucci, Founder and CEO of State Arumor, in a statement. "This decision is a vindication of the tireless work of so many patriotic groups, including State Armor, have done over the last year to make the public and lawmakers aware of the dangers that TikTok poses."

Lucci continued on to call for TikTok's sale to an American company "or immediately cease all operations within the United States, per the Supreme Court’s decision."

Others reacted to the Supreme Court's decision with disappointment, including Electronic Frontier Foundation Civil Liberties Director David Greene who called the holding "anti-democratic." 

TRUMP SAYS FATE OF TIKTOK SHOULD BE IN HIS HANDS WHEN HE RETURNS TO WHITE HOUSE

"Shutting down communications platforms or forcing their reorganization based on concerns of foreign propaganda and anti-national manipulation is an eminently anti-democratic tactic, one that the U.S. has previously condemned globally," he said in a statement released. 

Likewise, Dean of UC Berkeley School of Law Erwin Chemerinsky told Fox News Digital in a statement that he believes the Court was "wrong" in its decision. 

"Although unanimous, I think the Court was wrong," Chemerinsky said. "It accepted uncritically the government’s argument that China being able to gather information would harm national security; it never explained what kind of information is likely to be gathered to what effect.

"The impact on speech is staggering to ban a platform used by 173 million people in this country," he continued. 

Just last year, Congress required that TikTok's China-based parent company ByteDance divest the company by Jan. 19. The law was subsequently signed by Biden.

When the law was passed, Congress specifically noted concerns over the app's Chinese ownership, which members said meant the app had the potential to be weaponized or used to amass vast amounts of user data, including from the roughly 170 million Americans who use TikTok.

Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report. 

The Supreme Court on Friday heard oral arguments in a fast-tracked case over the future of TikTok, a Chinese-owned social media app that will be barred from operating in the U.S. in just nine days barring divestiture or eleventh-hour intervention from the high court.

At issue is the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, a law signed by President Biden that passed Congress in April with bipartisan approval. The act gave TikTok either nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be removed from U.S.-based app stores and hosting services. 

On Friday, lawyers for the Biden administration reiterated their argument that TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses a "grave" national security risk for American users. 

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar cited risks that China could weaponize the app, including by manipulating its algorithm to prioritize certain content or by ordering parent company ByteDance to turn over vast amounts of user data compiled by TikTok on U.S. users.

"We know that the PRC has a voracious appetite to get its hands on as much information about Americans as possible, and that creates a potent weapon here," Prelogar said. "Because the PRC could command ByteDance [to] comply with any request it gives to obtain that data."

"TikTok's immense data set would give the PRC a powerful tool for harassment, recruitment and espionage," she added. 

'HIGHLY QUALIFIED': FORMER STATE AGS URGE SENATE TO CONFIRM BONDI TO LEAD JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

Earlier in oral arguments when TikTok was presenting its case, justices on the bench as a whole appeared skeptical of the company's core argument, which is that the law is a restriction of speech.

"Exactly what is TikTok's speech here?" Justice Clarence Thomas asked in the first moments of oral arguments in an early sign of the court's apparent doubt that the law is in fact a First Amendment violation. 

At the conclusion of oral arguments, it remained unclear as to how the Supreme Court might proceed in the matter — though a ruling or order is expected before the Jan. 19 ban comes into force.

The Supreme Court and its 6-3 conservative majority have been historically deferential to Congress on matters of national security.

The divestiture law in question passed Congress last year with strong bipartisan support — as well as the guidance of top Justice Department officials, who worked directly with House lawmakers to write the bill and help it withstand possible legal challenges.

But the argument also comes at a time when President-elect Trump has signaled possible support for TikTok. His attorneys filed an amicus brief last month, urging the Supreme Court to delay the ban until he is sworn in as president.

If the goal of China and ByteDance, through TikTok, is "trying to get Americans to argue with each other," said Chief Justice John Roberts, "I’d say they are winning."

Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, on Friday sought to frame the case primarily as a restriction on free speech protections under the First Amendment, which the company argues applies to TikTok’s U.S.-based incorporation.

First Amendment protections must be considered under strict scrutiny, which requires the government to sustain a higher burden of proof in justifying a law's constitutionality. More specifically, the law must be crafted to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest — a test TikTok says the law fails to meet.

It's a difficult legal test to satisfy in court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit used it last month in considering the divestiture law, and still voted to uphold it — meaning that justices could theoretically consider the case under strict scrutiny and still opt to uphold the law — and the looming Jan. 19 ban.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Friday noted that the case before them appears to be the first one to be heard by the court centered directly on the ownership of a platform or app, rather than speech.

The liberal justice also questioned whether the court might consider the divestiture requirement under the law as a data control case, not properly a free-speech issue, as TikTok's legal team has sought to frame it.

Weighing the case as a data control case would trigger a lower level of scrutiny — a point that Francisco also acknowledged.

Francisco told justices in oral arguments on Friday that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Francisco told Chief Justice John Roberts that he believes the court should grant TikTok First Amendment protections because it is operating as a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary. 

The TikTok attorney was also grilled over the Chinese government’s control over the app, and ByteDance’s control over the algorithm that shows certain content to users.

Asked by Justice Neil Gorsuch whether some parts of the recommendation engine are under Chinese control, Francisco said no.

"What it means is that there are lots of parts of the source code that are embodied in intellectual property, that are owned by the Chinese government" and which a sale or divestiture would restrict, he said. "It doesn't alter the fact that this is being operated in the United States by TikTok incorporated."

TRUMP SAYS FATE OF TIKTOK SHOULD BE IN HIS HANDS WHEN HE RETURNS TO WHITE HOUSE

Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19.

Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections. 

The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content.

Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. 

The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app. 

Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19. 

The Supreme Court on Friday will hear oral arguments about a U.S. law requiring TikTok to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be banned from operating in the U.S. It's a heavily followed case that pits national security concerns against free speech protections for millions of Americans.

The court agreed in December to hold an expedited hearing on the case, giving it just nine days to decide whether to uphold TikTok's request to halt or delay the ban passed by Congress before it takes effect Jan. 19. 

It is unlikely the court will take that long, however, and justices are expected to issue a ruling or order in a matter of days.

The case comes as TikTok continues to be one of the most popular social media apps in the U.S. with an estimated 170 million users nationwide. 

'HIGHLY QUALIFIED': FORMER STATE AGS URGE SENATE TO CONFIRM BONDI TO LEAD JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

President-elect Trump has also signaled support for the app, putting the case further into the national spotlight in the final weeks before his inauguration.

Ahead of Friday's oral arguments, here's what to know about the arguments and how the Supreme Court might act.

TikTok arguments, alleged free speech violations 

TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, are urging the court to either block or delay the enforcement of a law Congress passed with bipartisan backing in April.

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act gave TikTok nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company or be removed from U.S. app stores and hosting services. Its owners have said repeatedly they will not do so. It also grants the president a 90-day window to delay the ban if TikTok says a divestiture is in progress.

TikTok, ByteDance and several users of the app swiftly sued to block the ban in May, arguing the legislation would suppress free speech for the millions of Americans who use the platform. 

Lawyers for TikTok argued that the law violates First Amendment protections, describing it as an "unprecedented attempt to single out applicants and bar them from operating one of the most significant speech platforms in this nation" and noting that lawmakers failed to consider less restrictive alternatives compared to an outright ban.

"History and precedent teach that, even when national security is at stake, speech bans must be Congress’s last resort," attorneys said in a reply brief filed last month to the high court. 

National security concerns 

Congress has cited concerns that China, a country it considers a foreign adversary of the U.S., could use TikTok to download vast troves of user data and push certain Chinese government-backed content onto users, prompting it to order the divestiture last spring. 

The Biden administration also echoed these concerns. In a Supreme Court brief, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar noted the law focuses solely on China’s control of the app, which the Biden administration argued could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans, rather than its content. 

Beijing could "covertly manipulate the platform" to advance geopolitical interests in the U.S., Prelogar noted, or use the vast amount of user data it has amassed for either espionage or blackmail. 

Lawyers for the administration will argue Friday that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech— much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content — and failed to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. 

The Biden administration also filed under seal classified evidence to the court that it argued "lends further support" to its conclusion that TikTok under ByteDance ownership should be banned. 

That evidence has not been released to the public. 

Political pressures 

The Supreme Court's decision to fast-track the case comes as President-elect Trump has signaled apparent support for the app in recent months.

In December, Trump hosted TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago resort, telling reporters during a press conference his incoming administration will "take a look at TikTok" and the divestiture case. 

"I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok," Trump told reporters.

Attorneys for the president-elect also filed a brief with the Supreme Court last month, asking justices to delay any decision in the case until after Trump's inauguration Jan. 20.

The brief did not signal how Trump might act. 

Still, attorneys for TikTok have cited that relationship directly in their Supreme Court filings. Last month, they argued an interim injunction is appropriate "because it will give the incoming Administration time to determine its position, as the President-elect and his advisors have voiced support for saving TikTok.

"There is a strong public interest that this Court have the opportunity to exercise plenary review.

The case also comes amid a groundswell of support from some lawmakers in Congress. 

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.; Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass.; and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., filed a brief Thursday urging the Supreme Court to reverse the ban, arguing the lawmakers do not have sufficient evidence needed to outweigh free speech protections granted under the First Amendment. 

In the brief, lawmakers referenced the nation's longtime reliance on national security claims as a means of justifying censorship, citing examples from the Sedition Acts of the 18th and 20th centuries and Cold War-era free speech restrictions. Banning TikTok due to "speculative concerns" about foreign interference, they argued, is "unconstitutional and contradicts fundamental American values." 

They argued the U.S. could adopt less drastic measures that would effectively address any data security concerns posed by the app while also not infringing on First Amendment rights.

Others remained deeply opposed. 

Sen. Mitch McConnell blasted TikTok's arguments as "unmeritless and unsound" in a filing of his own, noting that Congress explicitly set the Jan. 19 date for the divestiture clause to take force since it "very clearly removes any possible political uncertainty in the execution of the law by cabining it to an administration that was deeply supportive of the bill’s goals."

Editor's note: This essay was first published on the author's blog: Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks.

2025 has just begun and for the first time in many years, free-speech advocates have a reason to celebrate.

With the departure of 2024, we said goodbye to one of the most reviled offices in the Biden administration: The Global Engagement Center (GEC). I discuss the Center in my recent book, "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage" as one of the most active components in the massive censorship system funded by the Biden administration.  

The demise of the GEC is a good start. However, like weight-loss resolutions, it will take much more of a commitment if we are going to restore free speech in the United States.  It is time to make the ultimate resolution to rip out the censorship, root and stem, from our government.

In December, the Biden administration fought to keep the GEC funded, but Republicans refused to include it in the continuing resolution for the budget.  However, even with the closure of this one office, Biden will leave behind the most comprehensive censorship system in the history of the United States.

JONATHAN TURLEY: WHAT ABC'S APOLOGY TO TRUMP REVEALS ABOUT THE MEDIA LANDSCAPE

Over the last three years, many of us have detailed a comprehensive system of grants to academic and third-party organizations to create blacklists or to pressure advertisers to withdraw support for targeted sites. The subjects for censorship ranged from election fraud to social justice to climate change.

I testified at the first hearing by the special committee investigating the censorship system funded or coordinated by the Biden administration. It is an unprecedented alliance of corporate, government, and academic groups against free speech in the United States. The Biden administration established the most anti-free speech record since the Adams administration.

House investigations showed the critical role played by government officials in "switchboarding," or channeling demands for removal or bans in social media.  Officials evaded the limits of the First Amendment by using these groups as surrogates for censorship.

Even with the elimination of the GEC, other offices remain in various agencies, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in the Department of Homeland Security, which emerged as one of the critical control centers in this system.

BIDEN SPENT MILLIONS ON ‘MISINFORMATION’ RESEARCH. THE DETAILS ARE EVEN MORE DISTURBING THAN YOU THINK

CISA head Jen Easterly declared that her agency’s mandate over critical infrastructure would be extended to include "our cognitive infrastructure." That includes not just "disinformation" and "misinformation,"but combating "malinformation" – described as information "based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate."

These groups form a censorship consortium where the suppression of speech attracts millions in federal dollars. Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) was created in association with Stanford University "at the request of DHS/CISA."

EIP supplied a "centralized reporting system" to process what were known as "Jira tickets" targeting unacceptable views. It would include not only politicians but commentators and pundits as well as the satirical site The Babylon Bee.

Stanford’s Virality Project pushed to censor even true facts since "true stories … could fuel hesitancy" over taking the vaccine or other measures. Emails show government officials stressing that they could not be seen as "openly endors[ing]" censorship while other groups sought to minimize public scrutiny of their work.

For example, one article featured the work of Kate Starbird, director and co-founder of the University of Washington Center for an Informed Public. In one communication, Starbird cautioned against giving examples of disinformation to keep them from being used by critics, adding "since everything is politicized and disinformation inherently political, every example is bait."

Likewise, University of Michigan’s James Park is shown pitching that school’s WiseDex First Pitch program, promising that "our misinformation service helps policy makers at platforms who want to . . . push responsibility for difficult judgments to someone outside the company . . . by externalizing the difficult responsibility of censorship."

The system has layers of interconnected grants and systems. For example, the EIP worked with the Global Engagement Center, which contracted with the Atlantic Council in censorship efforts.

JONATHAN TURLEY: ANTIFA GEAR FOR KIDS? DEMOCRATS THINK IT'S CUTE TO FLAUNT SUPPORT FOR VIOLENT GROUP

The censorship system included scoring groups through a grant from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to the British-based Global Disinformation Index (GDI). The index targeted ten conservative and libertarian sites as the most dangerous sources of disinformation, including sites like Reason which publishes conservative legal analysis. Conversely, some of the most liberal sites were ranked as the most trustworthy for advertisers.

The system is still in place, but on December 23, 2024, the GEC closed its doors. That is something to celebrate but not something to take as great comfort. This is a redundant and overlapping system created precisely to allow for such attrition.

Years ago, some of us wrote about the creation of the infamous Disinformation Governance Board at Homeland Security under its so-called "Disinformation Nanny," Nina Jankowicz. When the Biden administration caved to public outcry and disbanded the Board, many celebrated. However, as I previously testified, the Biden administration never told the public about a far larger censorship effort in other agencies, including an estimated 80 FBI agents secretly targeting citizens and groups for disinformation.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

The system has functioned like a multi-headed hydra where cutting off one head only allows two more to grow back. These censors will not simply walk away and become dentists or bartenders. They have a skill set for censorship and this is now a profitable industry supporting scores of people who now market themselves as "disinformation specialists."

Shutting down the GEC will eliminate a $61 million budget and 120 employees. However, these employees will find ample opportunities not just in other agencies but in academia and state agencies. There are also pro-censorship sites like BlueSky, which are becoming safe spaces for liberals who do not want to be "triggered" by opposing views. (Notably, BlueSky hired a former Twitter employee who was fired after Elon Musk cleaned out at what is now X).

They are not going anywhere unless the Trump administration and Congress make free speech a priority in eliminating each of these funding sources.

As I wrote in my book, we need to get the United States out of the censorship business by passing a law barring any federal funds for the use of censorship, including grants to academic and NGO groups.

Rooting out this censorship system will require a comprehensive effort by the new Trump administration. So here is a resolution that I hope many in the Trump administration will share: let’s get the United States out of the censorship business in 2025.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATHAN TURLEY

A Florida sheriff said intruders should "expect to be shot" after releasing information about a homeowner who opened fire at two masked men trying to break into his house, killing one.

The deceased suspect was identified as 23-year-old Jorge Nestevan Flores-Toledo, from Mexico, according to the Manatee County Sheriff's Office.

The second suspect, Michel Soto-Mella, 39, an illegal immigrant from Chile, is charged with armed burglary, with additional charges pending, according to the sheriff's office.

Just after 9 p.m. Thursday, the Manatee County homeowner saw the two men entering the back of his house on his video surveillance system, according to authorities.

HERE ARE 10 TIMES LEGAL GUN OWNERS RECENTLY THWARTED CRIMES IN LIFE-THREATENING SITUATIONS

"He knew something bad was about to happen and he didn’t stall," MCSO Sheriff Rick Wells said during a press conference Friday. "He grabbed his firearm [and] told his wife to get into a safe spot."

The homeowner fired multiple rounds, hitting Flores-Toledo "several times," while Soto-Mella fled the scene, according to the sheriff's office. 

"I sat down next to the lanai, the door was open," John Nuceder, who was visiting a family member in the neighborhood, told Fox 13. "I vividly heard three gunshots."

Authorities said Flores-Toledo was initially reported to be in critical condition before being transported to Sarasota Memorial Hospital, where he died Friday morning.

"This is the state of Florida," Wells said. "If you want to break into someone's home, you should expect to be shot."

STUDY SHOWS CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITS SOARED DURING PANDEMIC, RECORD YEAR-OVER-YEAR INCREASE

Deputies tracked down Soto-Mella, who was in the country illegally after his 90-day visa expired in September, using K9 units and arrested him a few blocks away, according to the sheriff's office. The scene was secured and everyone involved was accounted for, posing no threat to the community.

Detectives are currently investigating Flores-Toledo's background and are "seeking to understand" why he and Soto-Mella targeted the home, according to a statement released by the sheriff's office Friday afternoon.

"We're trying to get everything that we can from the [surviving] suspect," Wells said. "He's being somewhat cooperative, but he's not telling us everything."

At a court hearing, Fox 13 reported Soto-Mella used a translator to tell the judge he did not have any guns.

Manatee County homicide detectives said they believe there may be other individuals involved in the crime.

Flores-Toledo, who also went by the name of Anibal Miller-Valencia, was arrested in Oak Brook, Illinois in 2023 and served four months in jail for residential burglary before being released on parole in November, according to authorities. He had an active warrant for a parole violation and was considered "armed and dangerous."

The Manatee County Sheriff's Office did not immediately respond to inquires from Fox News about whether the homeowner is facing any charges. His identity has not been released, as of Friday night.

Fox 13 Tampa Bay's Chuck Merlis and Ryan Burkett contributed to this story.

President-elect Trump says he should be the one to make the decision on whether TikTok can continue operating in the United States due to the unique national security and First Amendment issues raised by this case, he said in an amicus brief Friday.

Trump’s argument comes in an amicus brief "supporting neither party," filed Friday, weeks before the Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments on Jan. 10, 2025 on the law that requires a divestment of TikTok from foreign adversary control.

TIKTOK DIVESTMENT COULD BE ‘DEAL OF THE CENTURY’ FOR TRUMP, HOUSE CHINA COMMITTEE CHAIR SAYS

TikTok is owned by ByteDance, a company based in Beijing and connected to the Chinese Communist Party. 

"Today, President Donald J. Trump has filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Court to extend the deadline that would cause TikTok’s imminent shutdown, and allow President Trump the opportunity to resolve the issue in a way that saves TikTok and preserves American national security once he resumes office as President of the United States on January 20, 2025," Trump spokesman and incoming White House Communications Director Steven Cheung told Fox News Digital.

"President Donald J. Trump ("President Trump") is the 45th and soon to be the 47th President of the United States of America," the brief states. "On January 20, 2025, President Trump will assume responsibility for the United States’ national security, foreign policy, and other vital executive functions."

Trump argues that "this case presents an unprecedented, novel, and difficult tension between free-speech rights on one side, and foreign policy and national-security concerns on the other." "As the incoming Chief Executive, President Trump has a particularly powerful interest in and responsibility for those national-security and foreign-policy questions, and he is the right constitutional actor to resolve the dispute through political means.

President Trump also has a unique interest in the First Amendment issues raised in this case," the brief states. "Through his historic victory on November 5, 2024, President Trump received a powerful electoral mandate from American voters to protect the free-speech rights of all Americans—including the 170 million Americans who use TikTok."

"President Trump is uniquely situated to vindicate these interests, because ‘the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation,’" the brief continues.

WILL TRUMP WHITE HOUSE RESCUE TIKTOK FROM LOOMING BAN? PRESIDENT-ELECT HAS DONE A 180 ON THE APP

Trump argues that due to his "overarching responsibility for the United States’ national security and foreign policy— President Trump opposes banning TikTok in the United States at this juncture, and seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office."

"On September 4, 2024, President Trump posted on Truth Social, ‘FOR ALL THOSE THAT WANT TO SAVE TIK TOK IN AMERICA, VOTE TRUMP!’" the brief states.

Trump argues that he "alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government—concerns which President Trump himself has acknowledged."

"Indeed, President Trump’s first Term was highlighted by a series of policy triumphs achieved through historic deals, and he has a great prospect of success in this latest national security and foreign policy endeavor," the brief states.

Trump notes that the 270-day deadline imposed by the new TikTok law "expires on January 19, 2025—one day before President Trump will assume office as the 47th President of the United States."

That legislation, which was signed into law in the spring, requires a sale of TikTok from ByteDance by Jan. 19. If ByteDance does not divest by the deadline, Google and Apple are no longer able to feature TikTok in their app stores in the U.S.

"This unfortunate timing interferes with President Trump’s ability to manage the United States’ foreign policy and to pursue a resolution to both protect national security and save a social-media platform that provides a popular vehicle for 170 million Americans to exercise their core First Amendment rights," the brief states. "The Act imposes the timing constraint, moreover, without specifying any compelling government interest in that particular deadline."

Trump points to the law, which "contemplates a 90-day extension to the deadline under certain specified circumstances."

JOURNALISTS, COMMENTATORS RESPOND AS TRUMP JOINS TIKTOK, RAPIDLY GAINS 10X MORE FOLLOWERS THAN BIDEN

Supreme Court Justices said they will hold a special session on Jan. 10 to hear oral arguments in the case -- an expedited timeline that will allow them to consider the case just nine days before the Jan. 19 ban is slated to take effect. The law allows the president to extend the deadline by up to 90 days if ByteDance is in the process of divesting.

"President Trump, therefore, has a compelling interest as the incoming embodiment of the Executive Branch in seeing the statutory deadline stayed to allow his incoming Administration the opportunity to seek a negotiated resolution of these questions," the brief states. "If successful, such a resolution would obviate the need for this Court to decide the historically challenging First Amendment question presented here on the current, highly expedited basis."

TikTok and ByteDance filed an emergency application to the high court earlier this month asking justices to temporarily block the law from being enforced while it appealed a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Lawyers for TikTok have argued that the law passed earlier this year is a First Amendment violation, noting in their Supreme Court request that "Congress's unprecedented attempt to single out applicants and bar them from operating one of the most significant speech platforms in this nation" and "presents grave constitutional problems that this court likely will not allow to stand."

TikTok, last year, created its "Project Texas" initiative, which is dedicated to addressing concerns about U.S. national security.

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew says "Project Texas" creates a stand-alone version of the TikTok platform for the U.S. isolated on servers in Oracle’s U.S. cloud environment. It was developed by CFIUS and cost the company approximately $1.5 billion to implement.

Chew has argued that TikTok is not beholden to any one country, though executives in the past have admitted that Chinese officials had access to Americans' data even when U.S.-based TikTok officials did not. TikTok claims that the new initiative keeps U.S. user data safe, and told Fox News Digital that data is managed "by Americans, in America."

Trump has signaled support for TikTok. Earlier this month, he met with Chew at Mar-a-Lago, telling reporters during a press conference ahead of the meeting that his incoming administration will "take a look at TikTok" and the looming U.S. ban.

"I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok," Trump told reporters.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued several major decisions over the course of 2024. 

Its rulings include those that have pushed back on the Biden administration's attempted change of Title IX protections for transgender students, reversed a 40-year precedent that had supported what conservatives have condemned as the administrative state in Washington, and considered the constitutionality of Republican-controlled state efforts to curtail what they define as liberal Silicon Valley biases online. 

The high court also ruled on presidential immunity at a consequential time for current President-elect Trump during the 2024 election – and sided with a Jan. 6 defendant who fought a federal obstruction charge. 

Here are the top cases considered by the justices over the past year. 

The Supreme Court on Aug. 16, 2024, kept preliminary injunctions preventing the Biden-Harris administration from implementing a new rule that widened the definition of sex discrimination under Title IX to include sexual orientation and gender identity, while litigation over the rule continues.

After the Fifth and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeal denied the administration's request to put a stay on the injunctions, the Department of Education turned to the Supreme Court, arguing that some parts of the rule should be able to take effect. The Supreme Court rejected their request.

"Importantly, all Members of the Court today accept that the plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief as to three provisions of the rule, including the central provision that newly defines sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity," the court's unsigned opinion said, concluding that the Biden administration had not "adequately identified which particular provisions, if any, are sufficiently independent of the enjoined definitional provision and thus might be able to remain in effect."

In April, the Department of Education issued the new rule implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, arguing that expanding the definition of discrimination to include "sexual orientation and gender identity" would protect LGBTQ students. Louisiana led several states in suing the DOE, contending the new rule "violates students' and employees' rights to bodily privacy and safety." 

Title IX implemented the long-standing athletics regulation allowing sex-separate teams decades ago, and Republicans contended Biden’s new rule would have significant implications on women- and girls-only spaces and possibly legally back biological males playing in women’s sports. Separate court injunctions blocked the rule from taking effect in 26 states. 

LIBERAL SUPREME COURT JUSTICE MAKES ‘CRINGE’ CAMEO PERFORMANCE ON BROADWAY

"I’m grateful that the Supreme Court agreed not to block our injunction against this radical rewrite of Title IX," Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement at the time. "Other than the 19th Amendment guaranteeing our right to vote, Title IX has been the most successful law in history at ensuring equal opportunity for women in education at all levels and in collegiate athletics. This fight isn’t over, but I’ll keep fighting to block this radical agenda that eviscerates Title IX." 

The Supreme Court on July 1, 2024, kept on hold efforts by Texas and Florida to limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content in a ruling that strongly defended the platforms’ free speech rights.

Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said the platforms, like newspapers, deserve protection from governments’ intrusion in determining what to include or exclude from their space. "The principle does not change because the curated compilation has gone from the physical to the virtual world," Kagan wrote in an opinion signed by five justices. All nine justices agreed on the overall outcome.

The justices returned the cases to lower courts for further review in broad challenges from trade associations for the companies.

While the details vary, both laws aimed to address long-standing conservative complaints that the social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their viewpoints, especially on the political right. 

The Florida and Texas laws were signed by Republican governors in the months following decisions by Facebook and Twitter (now X) to cut then-President Trump off over his posts related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Trade associations representing the companies sued in federal court, claiming that the laws violated the platforms’ speech rights. One federal appeals court struck down Florida’s statute while another upheld the Texas law, but both were on hold pending the outcome at the Supreme Court.

In a statement made when he signed the Florida measure into law, Gov. Ron DeSantis said it would be "protection against the Silicon Valley elites."

When Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Texas law, he said it was needed to protect free speech in what he termed the new public square. Social media platforms "are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely – but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas," Abbott said. "That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas."

NetChoice LLC has sued Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. 

"The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded, because neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. NetChoice's decision to litigate these cases as facial challenges comes at a cost," the court wrote. "The Court has made facial challenges hard to win. In the First Amendment context, a plaintiff must show that 'a substantial number of [the law's] applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.' So far in these cases, no one has paid much attention to that issue." 

The court said its analysis and arguments "focused mainly on how the laws applied to the content-moderation practices that giant social-media platforms use on their best-known services to filter, alter or label their users' posts, i.e., on how the laws applied to the likes of Facebook's News Feed and YouTube's homepage," but the justices said they "did not address the full range of activities the laws cover, and measure the constitutional against the unconstitutional applications."

The Supreme Court on July 1, 2024, ruled that former presidents have substantial protection from prosecution, handing a major victory to Donald Trump, the former president who at the time was the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and is now president-elect.

Trump had moved to dismiss his indictment in a 2020 election interference case based on presidential immunity. 

The court did not dismiss the case, but the ruling did ensure the 45th president would not face trial in the case before the November 2024 election. 

In a 6-3 decision, the court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

"The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive." 

Trump, having won the 2024 presidential election, will take office Jan. 20, 2025.

SCOTUS HEARS ARGUMENTS IN CASE THAT COULD RESHAPE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court on June 28, 2024, overruled the 1984 landmark decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. 

Known as Chevron deference, the 40-year-old decision instructed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when laws passed by Congress were too ambiguous. It had been the basis for upholding thousands of regulations by dozens of federal agencies, but has long been a target of conservatives and business groups who argue that it grants too much power to the executive branch, or what some critics call the administrative state.

Roberts, writing for the court, said federal judges must now "exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority."

The ruling does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron doctrine, Roberts wrote. 

The reversal makes it so executive branch agencies will likely have more difficulty regulating the environment, public health, workplace safety and other issues. 

The case came about when Atlantic herring fishermen sued over federal rules requiring them to pay for independent observers to monitor their catch. The fishermen argued that the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act did not authorize officials to create industry-funded monitoring requirements and that the National Marine Fisheries Service failed to follow proper rulemaking procedures.

In two related cases, the fishermen asked the court to overturn the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, which stems from a unanimous Supreme Court case involving the energy giant in a dispute over the Clean Air Act. In that case, the court upheld an action by the Environmental Protection Agency under President Ronald Reagan.

In the decades following the ruling, Chevron has been a bedrock of modern administrative law, requiring judges to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of congressional statutes.

The current Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has been increasingly skeptical of the powers of federal agencies. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch have questioned the Chevron decision. Ironically, it was Gorsuch’s mother, former EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, who made the decision that the Supreme Court upheld in 1984.

The Biden administration argued that overturning Chevron would be destabilizing and could bring a "convulsive shock" to the nation’s legal system.

The Supreme Court on June 28, 2024, ruled in favor of a participant in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot who challenged his conviction for a federal obstruction crime.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Joseph Fischer – a former police officer and one of more than 300 people charged by the Justice Department with "obstruction of an official proceeding" in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. His lawyers argued that the federal statute should not apply, and that it had only ever been applied to evidence-tampering cases. 

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held to a narrower interpretation of a federal statute that imposes criminal liability on anyone who corruptly "alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding." 

The ruling reversed a lower court decision, which the justices said swept too broadly into areas like peaceful but disruptive conduct, and returned the case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The Justice Department argued that Fischer’s actions were a "deliberate attempt" to stop a joint session of Congress directly from certifying the 2020 election, thus qualifying their use of the statute that criminalizes behavior that "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do" and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

However, Roberts said the government stretched the law too far.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government – the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. I am disappointed by today’s decision, which limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement reacting to the ruling. 

"The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision," he said.

Fox News’ Chris Pandolfo, Bill Mears, Shannon Bream, Brooke Singman, Brianna Herlihy and The Associated Press contributed to this report.