The US Supreme Court is leaning toward banning TikTok due to security concerns

The Supreme Court appears poised to uphold a ban on TikTok in the US on national security grounds unless its China-based parent company sells the platform before a January 19 deadline.

Nine judges of the Court heard from lawyers representing TikTok, and content creators that the ban would be a violation of the free speech protection of the platform’s more than 170 million users in the US.

The US government pointed out that apart from selling, TikTok could be used by China as a tool for political surveillance and manipulation.

The decision of the high court should be made within days. President-elect Donald Trump – who returns to the White House in less than a week – now opposes the ban.

The law requires TikTok’s parent company ByteDance to sell it in the US or cease operations by January 19. The company said it will not sell the short video platform.

Congress passed the law with the support of both the Democratic and Republican parties – a moment that marked the culmination of years of concern about the popular platform, known for its viral videos and touching young people.

The law does not ban the use of the app, but it will require tech giants like Apple and Google to stop offering it and block updates, which analysts suggest will kill it in the long run.

TikTok has repeatedly denied any possible influence from the Chinese Communist Party and has said the law violates the First Amendment free speech rights of its users.

Noel Francisco, a former US attorney general who appeared at the forum, stressed that banning the most popular speech platform for Americans could also open the door to a dangerous type of surveillance.

He stated that “the government cannot restrict speech to protect us from speaking”.

“That’s exactly what this law does from beginning to end.”

A representative of the platform’s creators said that they should be free to use the publisher of their choice.

Jeffrey L Fisher, a law professor at Stanford University who is representing the creators suing the law, told the court on Friday that the country has been dealing with “anti-foreign ideological campaigns”.

But he said that under the First Amendment, mere opinions do not pose a threat to national security.

Attorney for the Department of Justice Elizabeth B Prelogar told the court that ByteDance’s relationship with the Chinese government makes it a national security risk.

He told the court that Beijing “could arm TikTok at any time to harm the United States”.

During arguments that lasted nearly three hours, the nine justices repeatedly returned to the national security concerns that created the law in the first place, while also probing free speech questions.

“Should we ignore the fact that the last parent is, in fact, under the guise of doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?” Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts asked TikTok’s lawyer Mr Francisco.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns the US government has raised about the data the app collects from its users and how that data can be used.

The risk appears to be “a serious concern for the future of the country”, he said.

In December, US President-elect Donald Trump urged the court to delay its decision until he returns to the White House so that he can find a “political solution” to solve the problems at hand.

A lawyer for TikTok told the court on Friday that, as far as he could see, the platform would go dark on January 19 without intervention.

Ms Prelogar, opposing the US justice department, said “nothing permanent” should happen on that day and there is still time for the sale.

Forcing the app to go dark could be the “jolt” ByteDance needs to consider selling, he said.

“It will fundamentally change the landscape in terms of what ByteDance might consider,” he said, comparing the situation to a “game of chicken” and one in which the US should not “blink first”.

After the trial, legal observers predicted that the Supreme Court justices appeared to be swayed by the government’s concerns.

“The Supreme Court has generally been willing to recuse itself when national security is at stake,” said University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias.

“I expect that the majority of judges will side with the government,” he added.

Jacob Hubert, a lawyer and president of the Liberty Justice Center – which represents BASED Politics, an internet content producer – said it is still difficult to predict how the court will rule.

But he says the ban would violate the freedom of speech of millions of Americans — a point he believes was successfully made by TikTok’s lawyers.

“It’s not about China’s rights, or the rights of the Communist Party,” he said. “It’s about the rights of Americans who use TikTok, specifically, to talk to other Americans.”

More than 100 people braved the tense atmosphere in Washington DC to attend the hearing in person.

Chloe Joy Sexton – one of the creators of TikTok whose name is suit – said that the platform has brought many creators “financial independence”, including many mothers.

“Banning TikTok will put these women, including me, in real financial danger,” she told reporters. “It will destroy my business and the community and that means a lot to me.”

Danielle Ballesteros, a student at UC San Diego, said she had been waiting outside the court since 06:30 local time.

“I feel that TikTok does not deserve to be banned,” he told BBC News.

While he admits to using it “probably too much”, he said he believes the app is an important news source for his generation.

TikTok is already banned from government devices in many countries, including the UK. It faces a complete ban in some countries, including India.

Last December, a a three-judge appeals court decision upheld the lawnoting China’s record of working with the private sector and said the move was justified as “part of a broader effort to combat a well-documented national security threat” by the country.