Alan Rozenshtein, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and former lawyer in the Justice Department's National Security Division, joins the discussion on TikTok's urgent battle against a possible U.S. ban. The conversation dives into the implications of the Supreme Court's upcoming arguments and the potential outcomes that could reshape the app's future. Rozenshtein also unpacks the complexities of free speech versus national security, while examining the intricate ties between politics and legal decisions surrounding the social media platform.
TikTok's appeal to the Supreme Court is complicated by established legal principles and skepticism about its chances of success.
The case underscores a tension between First Amendment rights and national security concerns, highlighting the complexities of free expression amid potential threats.
Deep dives
TikTok's Supreme Court Challenge
TikTok faces a potential ban in the U.S., prompting the company to appeal to the Supreme Court for intervention. The court's reception to TikTok's arguments is critical, especially following a previous defeat at the D.C. Circuit Court, where judges from both liberal and conservative backgrounds unanimously ruled against it. Alan Rosenstein, a law professor, expresses skepticism about TikTok's chances of success in the Supreme Court, suggesting that the legal principles at stake are well established and unlikely to shift. With a deadline looming for the ban to take effect, the urgency of TikTok's situation adds pressure to the proceedings.
Political Influences on Judicial Decisions
The involvement of President-elect Donald Trump, who has requested the Supreme Court to pause the ban, intertwines politics with the judicial process. Rosenstein notes that while justices are aware of political dynamics, there is no precedent for them to rule based on political requests, particularly from an incoming president. The court consists of various ideological factions, and Rosenstein argues that justices appointed by Trump may not feel beholden to his desires. This suggests that the Supreme Court might prioritize legal precedent over political influence, emphasizing the separation of powers.
Balancing First Amendment Rights with National Security
The debate surrounding TikTok highlights a significant conflict between First Amendment rights and national security concerns. Rosenstein points out that while TikTok's users have rights to free expression, there are also valid national security threats posed by Chinese government influence. This intra-First Amendment conflict complicates the legal landscape, as the D.C. Circuit upheld the ban not solely on national security grounds but also due to potential infringements on free expression by a foreign entity. Additionally, the absence of concrete evidence regarding TikTok's misuse for espionage doesn't negate the apprehensions about the platform's potential risks, which further complicates the court's decision-making process.
TikTok is set to be banned in the U.S. in just nine days. Today, the company will try to convince the Supreme Court to strike the ban down — or at least put it on ice. And President-elect Donald Trump has requested the Supreme Court punt the ban until after he’s taken office and can try to broker some sort of solution. Still, TikTok has some long odds. On POLITICO Tech, host Steven Overly talks with Alan Rozenshtein, a law professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and former lawyer in the Justice Department, about what to watch for during today’s arguments.