The Supreme Court decided on Wednesday to hear a challenge to the TikTok divestment law.
Sarah Kreps, professor of government and law, is director of the Tech Policy Institute at Cornell University.
Kreps says: “The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the TikTok case reflects an inclination to make its mark on a potentially landmark decision – how to balance constitutional freedoms against national security in an era of globalized technology. The case has already gone through the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the lower court, all of which upheld the argument that TikTok’s ownership by China-based ByteDance poses a national security risk.
“Notably, the DC Court of Appeals unanimously ruled to let the ban stand and did not entertain an injunction that would have delayed the ban. The DC appeals court not only emphasized the weight of national security concerns but turned traditional free speech arguments on their head, defending the government's responsibility to protect constitutional freedoms from a foreign adversary through a forced sale or ban. While it is difficult to predict the outcome, it would be surprising for the Court to overturn the collective determination of these other branches and prior rulings.”
For interviews, contact Becka Bowyer, (607) 220-4185, rpb224@cornell.edu.
