ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.”
“The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.”
The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not.
The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here.
“The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.”
Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden.
“Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.”
You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
Free Speech
Ahead of House Vote on Bill that Would Stifle Dissent, ACLU Sounds Alarm AgainAhead of House Vote on Bill that Would Stifle Dissent, ACLU Sounds Alarm Again
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives is set to vote Thursday on the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, a bill that would give the incoming Trump administration new power to muzzle, punish, and effectively shut down tax-exempt organizations without transparency or appropriate due process. This misguided piece of legislation would impact a wide range of tax-exempt organizations, including nonprofits, universities, and even news outlets. Last week, Congress narrowly blocked the bill based on due process concerns and significant constituent opposition. In just a few days, over 100,000 people sent messages to their members asking them to oppose H.R. 9495. Last week’s vote was brought up under suspension, which requires a two-thirds majority to pass. Tomorrow’s vote will come under regular order and only requires a simple majority. The American Civil Liberties Union led a coalition of over 180 non-profit organizations — including Planned Parenthood, AFL-CIO, United Auto Workers, and the NAACP — in a letter to Congress outlining why this bill is not only dangerous, but unnecessary. The letter also laid out how future administrations could abuse it to lock in power, silence dissent, and go after disfavored groups and vulnerable communities. “Every time we give the president new powers and more authority to act alone, we create an open invitation for abuse by the executive branch,” said Kia Hamadanchy, senior federal policy counsel at ACLU. “While the ACLU would oppose this legislation no matter who the president is, and there is no question it could be weaponized against groups on both ends of the ideological spectrum, the rhetoric we saw on the campaign trail from the president-elect is even more reason for Congress to reject this bill.” H.R. 9495 joins two unrelated measures together: one allowing the Treasury Department to withhold tax-exempt status from any nonprofit it accuses of being a “terrorist-supporting organization” — without being required to disclose the evidence against it — and another, non-controversial measure, which would offer tax relief to Americans imprisoned unjustly abroad. The latter provision already passed the Senate as a stand-alone bill, and as the coalition letter notes, none of the groups oppose these tax-relief provisions. In fact, not a single member of Congress has thus far raised any opposition to these provisions. The fastest way for it to become law is for the House to simply pass the Senate bill.