TikTok Inc. v. Garland
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in TikTok Inc. v. Garland and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of TikTok Inc. v. Garland.
The Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which prohibits TikTok's operation in the U.S. unless it undergoes a qualified divestiture. The Court assumed the Act was subject to First Amendment scrutiny and applied intermediate scrutiny, finding the Act justified by national security concerns. The Court concluded that the Act does not violate petitioners' First Amendment rights.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in TikTok Inc. v. Garland.
The Court held that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners' First Amendment rights.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in TikTok Inc. v. Garland. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Free Speech is relevant to TikTok Inc. v. Garland
The case primarily addresses whether the Act violates the First Amendment rights of TikTok and its users, focusing on free speech implications.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: The challenged provisions do not violate petitioners' First Amendment rights. Pp. 67–80.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to TikTok Inc. v. Garland
The Court exercises its power to review the constitutionality of the Act under the First Amendment.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)We granted certiorari to decide whether the Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment.
-
Why State–Federal Power is relevant to TikTok Inc. v. Garland
The case involves federal legislative action addressing national security concerns related to foreign adversary control over a communications platform.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)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.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in TikTok Inc. v. Garland that support the summary and concepts above.
The challenged provisions do not violate petitioners' First Amendment rights.
The Act's prohibitions and divestiture requirement are designed to prevent China from leveraging its control over ByteDance Ltd. to capture the personal data of U.S. TikTok users.
The Court assumes without deciding that the challenged provisions are subject to First Amendment scrutiny.
