604 U.S. 56 (2025) · 2025
TikTok Inc. v. Garland
free speechinternet regulationnational securityforeign adversary controlplatform governancedata privacyLandmark
Summary
TikTok, ByteDance, and TikTok users challenged the federal Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, arguing that the law violated the First Amendment by targeting a major speech platform. The Supreme Court affirmed the D.C. Circuit. The Court assumed without deciding that First Amendment scrutiny applied and held that the challenged provisions satisfied intermediate scrutiny because Congress had a supported national-security interest in preventing a foreign adversary from collecting large amounts of U.S. user data through TikTok. The ruling was narrow and focused on TikTok's ownership, scale, and data risks.
Background & Context
TikTok operates a large social-media platform in the United States, while its parent company ByteDance is based in China. Congress found that TikTok's ownership and data practices created national-security risks. The federal law at issue did not simply order users to stop speaking. It restricted app-store and hosting services from supporting TikTok unless the app was separated from foreign-adversary control through a qualified divestiture. The Court considered the First Amendment challenge on an expedited timeline before the statutory deadline.
The Question Before the Court
Does the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to TikTok, ByteDance, and TikTok users, violate the First Amendment?
Petitioner
TikTok Inc., ByteDance Ltd., et al.
Party asking the Court to review or reverse
Argued
- The law targets ownership and data-security risks, not viewpoint or message.
- The law gives TikTok a path to continue operating through qualified divestiture.
- National security justifies the burden under intermediate scrutiny.
Respondent
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General
Party defending the judgment below
Argued
- The law singles out a major speech platform.
- The divestiture requirement functions as a shutdown if divestiture is not realistically available.
- Strict scrutiny should apply.
The Holding
The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to TikTok and ByteDance, do not violate the First Amendment. The Court assumed without deciding that First Amendment scrutiny applied and held that the Act satisfied intermediate scrutiny based on Congress's national-security concern about data collection by a foreign-adversary-controlled application.
The Court
How the justices lined up in this decision.
9-0
Vote
Joined decision
9 justicesAC
Amy Barrett
Majority
BK
Brett Kavanaugh
Majority
CT
Clarence Thomas
Majority
EK
Elena Kagan
Majority
JR
John Roberts
Majority
KB
Ketanji Jackson
Majority
NG
Neil Gorsuch
Majority
SA
Samuel Alito
Majority
SS
Sonia Sotomayor
Majority
What this means for you
The decision allowed the divest-or-prohibition law to take effect against a platform used by more than 170 million people in the United States. It affected creators, small businesses, journalists, organizers, and ordinary users who relied on TikTok for speech, income, community, and distribution. The Court framed the ruling as narrow and tied to TikTok's scale, data practices, and foreign-adversary-control concerns. The decision did not give Congress a blank check to ban platforms because officials dislike their content.
Key Takeaways
- The Court upheld the law as applied to TikTok and ByteDance.
- The Court assumed First Amendment scrutiny applied but did not decide the full threshold question.
- The majority treated Congress's data-collection rationale as content neutral and sufficient under intermediate scrutiny.
- The law did not directly criminalize users' speech; it restricted U.S. distribution, maintenance, and updating unless TikTok completed a qualified divestiture.
- The practical impact reached creators, small businesses, communities, and users who relied on TikTok, while the Court emphasized national-security risks tied to foreign-adversary control.
Decision
9-0 per curiam opinion
- Citation
- 604 U.S. 56 (2025)
- Vote
- 9-0
- Decision type
- Per curiam opinion
- Argued
- January 10, 2025
- Decided
- January 17, 2025
- Term
- 2024
- Opinion author
- Unsigned per curiam
The Court issued a per curiam opinion affirming the D.C. Circuit. Justice Sotomayor concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch concurred in the judgment. No Justice dissented.