While the Court based this decision solely on the non-classified portion of the record, I found this quote to be very interesting:
>Notably, TikTok never squarely denies that it has ever manipulated content on the TikTok platform at the direction of the PRC.
The Court held that the law could satisfy strict scrutiny (regardless of whether or not it applies), which requires that the Government prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and less restrictive alternatives would not accomplish the Government's goals. That's a high, high bar, and most laws subject to it are found wanting.
I doubt that the Supreme Court is going to want to hear this case. The most interesting legal question for them to decide was whether the law is subject to strict or intermediate scrutiny, but that is off the table now that the D.C. Circuit says it doesn't matter because the law could satisfy either standard.
>Notably, TikTok never squarely denies that it has ever manipulated content on the TikTok platform at the direction of the PRC.
The Court held that the law could satisfy strict scrutiny (regardless of whether or not it applies), which requires that the Government prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and less restrictive alternatives would not accomplish the Government's goals. That's a high, high bar, and most laws subject to it are found wanting.
I doubt that the Supreme Court is going to want to hear this case. The most interesting legal question for them to decide was whether the law is subject to strict or intermediate scrutiny, but that is off the table now that the D.C. Circuit says it doesn't matter because the law could satisfy either standard.
Direct link to the opinion: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/12/24-111...