Supreme Court Walks the Tightrope Between Security and Expression in TikTok Case
Unanimous decision, too.
The Supreme Court’s decision in TikTok Inc. v. Garland is one of those rare moments where national security and the First Amendment clash head-on, and the Justices managed to navigate the middle ground.
By upholding the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, the Court sent a clear message: national security concerns are legitimate, but they don’t automatically trump the First Amendment.
The Court didn’t hand the government a blank check to do whatever it wants in the name of security. Instead, the justices carefully weighed whether the law crossed the line into censorship. Ultimately, they found that while the law does place a burden on expression, it doesn’t outright suppress speech.
That’s an important distinction—and one that speaks to how seriously the Court takes its responsibility to defend constitutional freedoms.
National Security Without Censorship
As I wrote previously, this law isn’t about silencing TikTok creators or banning certain types of content. It’s about who controls the app and, more importantly, the massive amounts of data it collects. ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, is subject to Chinese law, meaning the Chinese government can demand access to user data whenever it wants.
We’re talking about everything from location data to behavioral patterns—information that could be weaponized for espionage, blackmail, or even propaganda. This isn’t a hypothetical risk. It’s real, and Congress acted because it recognized the threat.
Still, critics of the law argue it limits free speech. The Court disagreed. They determined the law is content-neutral—it doesn’t target what’s being said on TikTok but focuses instead on the platform’s ties to a foreign adversary. The distinction is subtle but critical.
Burdened, Not Silenced
Yes, the law burdens expressive activities. There’s no denying that forcing TikTok to divest or leave the U.S. would disrupt a platform where millions of Americans create, share, and consume content. But the Court made it clear that the burden stops short of outright suppression.
Nobody’s being silenced here. The government isn’t coming for TikTok users’ ability to express themselves. If ByteDance chooses not to divest and TikTok shuts down, it’s because they decided keeping the app under Chinese control was more important than continuing to operate in the U.S.
By narrowly tailoring the law to address data security, Congress avoided sweeping measures that could have unnecessarily infringed on free expression. And the Court, in upholding the law, reinforced that line.
First Amendment in the Digital Age
This case is a perfect example of how hard it is to apply old constitutional principles to new technologies. TikTok isn’t just another app—it’s a cultural phenomenon. It’s where trends are born, movements grow, and millions of Americans engage with each other in ways we couldn’t have imagined a decade ago.
But here’s the thing: even cultural phenomena have to play by the rules. The First Amendment is broad and vital, but it’s not a free pass for foreign entities to exploit American data. And the Court’s ruling reflects that understanding.
Justice Sotomayor summed it up perfectly in her concurrence. She acknowledged the burden on expression but pointed out that the law’s focus on national security allowed it to survive heightened scrutiny. Justice Gorsuch, always the skeptic of government power, warned against giving too much latitude under the banner of security, but even he agreed that this law was appropriately focused.
A New Precedent
So what happens now? TikTok has a choice: sever its ties to Chinese ownership or leave the U.S. market. Congress, meanwhile, has set a precedent for how to tackle national security threats in the digital space without trampling on constitutional rights.
This case isn’t just about TikTok. It’s about the broader question of how we handle emerging technologies in an increasingly interconnected world. The Court’s decision showed that even in the face of modern challenges, our system still works.
At the end of the day, TikTok Inc. v. Garland is a reminder of what makes America unique. We value security, but not at the expense of freedom. The Court recognized that balance and upheld it. That’s the kind of careful, principled decision-making we need more of—and one that ensures we don’t lose sight of what we’re really protecting.