TikTok asks federal appeals court to bar enforcement of potential ban until Supreme Court review

TikTok asked a federal appeals court on Monday to bar the Biden administration from enforcing a law that could lead to a ban on the popular platform until the Supreme Court reviews its challenge to the statute.

The legal filing was made after a panel of three judges on the same court sided with the government last week and ruled that the law, which requires TikTok to divest from its China-based parent company or face a ban as soon as next month, was constitutional.

If the law is not overturned, both TikTok and its parent ByteDance, which is also a plaintiff in the case, have claimed that the popular app will shut down by Jan. 19, 2025. TikTok has more than 170 million American users who would be affected, the companies have said.

In their legal filing on Monday, attorneys for the two companies wrote that even if a shutdown lasted one month, it would cause TikTok to lose about a third of its daily users in the U.S.

The company would also lose 29% of its total “targeted global” advertising revenue for next year as well as talent since current and prospective employees would look elsewhere for jobs, they wrote.

“Before that happens, the Supreme Court should have an opportunity, as the only court with appellate jurisdiction over this action, to decide whether to review this exceptionally important case,” the filing said.

It’s not clear if the Supreme Court will take up the case. But some legal experts have said the justices are likely to weigh in on the case since it raises novel issues about social media platforms and how far the government could go in its stated aims of protecting national security.

President-elect Donald Trump, who tried to ban TikTok the last time he was in the White House, has said he is now against such action.

In their legal filing, the two companies pointed to the political realities, saying that an injunction would provide a “modest delay” that would give “the incoming Administration time to determine its position — which could moot both the impending harms and the need for Supreme Court review.”