←  Case Chronicle

U.S. Supreme Court · No. 24‑656  ·  D.C. Circuit · No. 24‑1113

TikTok v. Garland

In April 2024 Congress gave ByteDance, TikTok’s China-based parent company, until January 19, 2025 to sell the app’s US business, or app stores and web hosts in the United States would have to drop it. TikTok and a group of creators sued, saying the law broke the First Amendment. On January 17, 2025, the Supreme Court upheld it, and no justice dissented. Then the law wasn’t enforced. The new President held it off five times and approved a sale, and a new company took over in January 2026. A new case says that sale breaks the same law, and it’s still open.

Filed
May 7, 2024
Argued
Jan 10, 2025
Decided
Jan 17, 2025
Status
Law upheld

Petitioners The side that asked the court to step in

TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd.

The app’s US company and its China-based parent

TikTok Inc. is the California company that runs the app in the United States. Two companies further up, it’s owned by ByteDance Ltd., which is incorporated in the Cayman Islands and has its main operations in China. ByteDance owns the recommendation algorithm, which is developed and maintained in China. Its founder, Zhang Yiming, a Chinese national, owns 21 percent.

Eight people who post on TikTok sued too, in a case of their own heard alongside this one: Brian Firebaugh, a rancher and Marine veteran, Chloe Joy Sexton, Talia Cadet, Timothy Martin, Paul Tran, Steven King, Kiera Spann and Christopher Townsend. They post about ranching, parenting and a cookie business, books, football, skincare, sober living, survivors of sexual assault, and music and faith. BASED Politics, a nonprofit that makes videos for Gen Z, joined them.

Noel Francisco, a former Solicitor General, argued for TikTok in the Supreme Court, and Jeffrey Fisher for the creators. Andrew Pincus argued for TikTok in the D.C. Circuit.

D.C. Cir. opinion pp. 10–11 · Opinion p. 3 · Creators’ brief pp. 5–7 · Tr. p. 2 · Jones Day, Francisco · D.C. Cir. opinion p. 1

Respondent The side answering

Merrick B. Garland

Attorney General, sued in that role

The law gives the job of enforcing it to the Attorney General and no one else, so the Attorney General was the one sued, in that role and not as a person. Garland held the office until President Biden’s term ended on January 20, 2025, and the Supreme Court’s case keeps his name. The office has since passed to Pamela Bondi, and in April 2026 to Todd Blanche, who was confirmed in August 2026.

Elizabeth Prelogar, the Solicitor General, argued for the government in the Supreme Court, and Daniel Tenny of the Justice Department in the D.C. Circuit. Its evidence was mostly sworn statements from officials of the intelligence agencies, the FBI and the Justice Department. Some of it was classified, and neither court relied on that part.

Pub. L. 118-50 § 2(d) · Tr. p. 2 · D.C. Cir. opinion p. 3 · Amended petition ¶ 17 · States Newsroom, Aug 8, 2026

Notes

How this was made, and what it leaves out

Source

Built from the record of the two courts: the dockets, the briefs, the sworn declarations in the appendix, the D.C. Circuit’s opinion of December 6, 2024, the Supreme Court’s opinion of January 17, 2025, and the transcript of the argument on January 10, 2025. Then the law itself, the President’s orders in the Federal Register, and the filings in Tan v. Trump, read through the archive of federal court records on CourtListener. Each side is described in its own words, in court or in its own briefs.

Words spoken in the Supreme Court are quoted from the Court’s own transcript and cited by its page. The D.C. Circuit doesn’t post transcripts, so its argument is described, not quoted, with a link to the court’s recording. What happened outside the courts after the ruling is cited to the orders themselves where there are any, and to reporting where there aren’t.

Docket, No. 24-656 · Docket, No. 24-1113 · Opinion · Transcript

Two cases, one ruling

Two cases were heard together the whole way. TikTok and ByteDance’s is No. 24-1113 in the D.C. Circuit and No. 24-656 in the Supreme Court. The creators’ is No. 24-1130 and No. 24-657, Firebaugh v. Garland. A third petition, BASED Politics’, No. 24-1183, was joined to them in the D.C. Circuit. One opinion in each court decided them all.

Other challenges to the same law are left out. One by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and two others, No. 24-1316, was filed in October 2024, and the government asked the court to set it aside while this one was decided.

Docket, No. 24-657 · Order of Jun 18, 2024 · D.C. Cir. opinion p. 1

The case after the case

The Supreme Court’s case is over. It sent its judgment down on February 18, 2025, and the D.C. Circuit closed the case ten days later. What happened to the law after that, the orders not to enforce it, the sale and the new company, happened outside both courts, and these pages say so card by card.

Then in March 2026 a new case was filed under the same law, Tan v. Trump, No. 26-1047 in the D.C. Circuit. Two software engineers who own stock in Alphabet and Meta brought it, and later a former employee of a ByteDance company, against President Trump and the Attorney General. It says the sale isn’t the one the law demands. It’s still open. These pages show it as far as its record goes, with what each side says marked as what that side says.

Judgment issued · Mandate, Feb 28, 2025 · Docket, No. 26-1047 · Amended petition ¶¶ 13–15

What this is not

Not legal advice, not a finding, and not a verdict. The Supreme Court upheld the law as it applies to TikTok and the creators. It didn’t decide whether the 2026 sale meets the law, and no court has yet. What the challengers in Tan v. Trump say about the deal is reported as their claim, and the President’s findings about it as his findings.

The government also filed classified evidence that TikTok never saw. Both courts said they decided without it, and these pages leave it out. Where the record doesn’t reach, these pages say so and stop.

Opinion p. 13 n. 3 · D.C. Cir. opinion p. 64

Tell me what I got wrong

If something here is missed, misrepresented or unfairly portrayed, let me know. Point me at a filing or record and I will verify it on my end. I actively look to correct, improve and remain unbiased.

Type of issue

No account, no name, no email. The submission stores what you typed, your address and your browser string, to make abuse traceable and for nothing else.

Record reviewed through October 23, 2026. Nothing filed after that date is reflected here.

Terms

Plain English

Words these pages use because the courts use them. The case went through two courts, the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court, and a few words only matter after the ruling, in the case that came after it.

The courts

D.C. Circuit
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Washington. The law sends every challenge to it first, and to no other court.
Panel
The three judges of an appeals court who hear a case or a motion. The D.C. Circuit has about a dozen judges, and different panels handle different steps.
Merits panel
The panel that will decide a case itself, as opposed to the ones that handle motions along the way.
Attorney General
The head of the Justice Department. The law gives this office alone the job of enforcing it, which is why the case is named after one.
Solicitor General
The lawyer who argues the federal government’s cases in the Supreme Court. Elizabeth Prelogar held the job when this case was argued.
Per curiam
Latin for “by the court.” An opinion that no one justice signs, issued in the name of the whole Court.
Concurring opinion
A justice who agrees with the result writing separately to give other or extra reasons. Concurring “in the judgment” means agreeing with the result but not the Court’s reasoning.

The paperwork

Docket
The court’s numbered list of everything filed in a case. Entry 42 is the forty-second thing filed.
Petition for review
How a case under this law starts: a request made straight to the appeals court, with no trial court first.
Exclusive jurisdiction
Being the only court allowed to hear a kind of case. The law gave that to the D.C. Circuit.
Consolidated
Separate cases joined so they’re briefed, argued and decided together.
Brief
A side’s written argument to the court.
Amicus brief
A brief from someone who isn’t a party, a “friend of the court,” giving the court a view of the case.
Declaration
A written statement a witness signs under penalty of perjury. There was no trial here, so the evidence was mostly declarations.
Record
Everything a court has in front of it to decide a case: the filings, the declarations, the evidence.
Classified evidence
Material the government keeps secret for national security. It filed some here for the judges alone, which the other side never got to see or answer.
Special master
Someone a court appoints to help with a task. TikTok asked for one with a security clearance to review the secret evidence.

How the case moved

Application
A request to the Supreme Court for emergency help before it has taken a case. Here, to pause the law before it took effect.
Injunction
A court order stopping something. One “pending review” pauses a law while a higher court looks at the case.
Certiorari
The Supreme Court agreeing to hear a case. Here it treated TikTok’s emergency applications as requests for it and granted them two days later.
Question presented
The exact question the Supreme Court agrees to answer. Here there was one: does the law, as applied to TikTok and the creators, violate the First Amendment.
As applied
A challenge to how a law works on the people bringing it, not to every possible use of it. The Supreme Court looked only at the part of the law that names TikTok.
Oral argument
The time the lawyers spend answering the judges’ questions in court. No witnesses, no new evidence and no jury.
Divided argument
Two lawyers splitting one side’s time. TikTok’s lawyer and the creators’ lawyer shared the challengers’ side.
Rebuttal
The few minutes the side that brought the case gets at the end, to answer the other side.
Mandate
The formal order that closes an appeal and makes the decision final in the court below.
Moot
No longer a live question, so there’s nothing left for a court to decide.

The law

Divestiture
Selling off a business, or enough of it that the seller no longer controls it.
Qualified divestiture
A sale the President finds ends a foreign adversary’s control and leaves no “operational relationship” with ByteDance. Only that lifts the law’s ban.
Operational relationship
The tie the law says can’t survive the sale, “including any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or an agreement with respect to data sharing.”
Foreign adversary
A country the law treats as one: China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
App stores and hosting
What the law actually forbids, which is offering the app in an app store or hosting it. So it binds companies like Apple, Google and Oracle, not TikTok’s users.
Civil penalty
A fine, not a crime. The law sets it at up to $5,000 for each US user reached through a violation.
The one extension
The law let the President add up to 90 days, once, if he told Congress a sale was in sight and showed binding agreements. No President used it.
The general track
The law’s second route, which lets the President name other apps controlled by a foreign adversary later. TikTok was named in the law itself.
Recommendation algorithm
The software that picks which video each user sees next on the “For You” feed. ByteDance owns it, and it’s developed and maintained in China.
Executive order
A written order from the President to the executive branch, published in the Federal Register.
Non-enforcement
The executive branch choosing not to bring cases under a law, here on the President’s orders. The law itself stays on the books.
CFIUS
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the federal panel that reviews foreign purchases of US businesses for security risks.
National security agreement
A contract setting the security conditions a company operates under. TikTok’s draft ran about 90 pages and was never signed.
Project Texas
TikTok’s plan to keep US users’ data in the United States, stored with Oracle and run by a separate US company. TikTok says it spent more than $2 billion on it.
IEEPA
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the 1977 law President Trump used for his 2020 ban. Courts found it couldn’t reach this kind of communication.

The free-speech test

First Amendment
The part of the Constitution that bars the government from “abridging the freedom of speech.” Courts check laws that burden speech with one of a few tests.
Assume without deciding
A court treating something as true for the sake of argument, because the answer wouldn’t change the result, and leaving the real question open.
Heightened scrutiny
Any of the stricter tests a court uses when a law burdens speech, instead of just asking whether the law is reasonable.
Strict scrutiny
The hardest test. The government needs a compelling reason and the narrowest way of getting there. Most laws that get it fail.
Intermediate scrutiny
The middle test. The government needs an important reason that isn’t about suppressing speech, and a law that doesn’t burden much more speech than it has to.
Content-based
Aimed at what is said, its topic, idea or message. A content-based law gets strict scrutiny.
Content-neutral
Applying whatever is said, like a limit on how loud a speaker can be. A content-neutral law gets intermediate scrutiny.
Singling out a speaker
A law aimed at one speaker. Courts look harder when that’s a way of getting at what the speaker says.
Tailoring
Whether a law fits its reason, covering what the problem needs and not much more.
Less restrictive alternative
Another way of meeting the same goal that burdens less speech. If one would work as well, the law can fail.
Underinclusive
Covering too little of the problem a law claims to fix, which can suggest the stated reason isn’t the real one.
Deference
A court giving weight to another branch’s judgment, here Congress’s predictions about national security.
Covert content manipulation
The government’s second reason: that China could secretly have ByteDance change what Americans see on TikTok. The Supreme Court didn’t rest on it.

The other claims

Equal protection
The Constitution’s promise that the government won’t treat people differently without a good enough reason.
Bill of attainder
A law that punishes a named person or group without a trial. The Constitution forbids Congress to pass one.
Taking
The government seizing private property, which the Constitution allows only with fair payment.

The case after the case

Standing
The right to bring a case at all. A challenger has to show a real injury of their own, caused by what they’re challenging, that a court could fix.
Deadline to sue
The time limit for bringing a case, also called a statute of limitations. This law allows 90 days after the government action being challenged.
Motion to dismiss
Asking a court to end a case without deciding who is right, for a reason like filing too late or having no standing.
Ripe
Ready for a court. A challenge to something that hasn’t happened yet comes too early.
Pseudonym
A made-up name, here “John Doe,” that a court lets a party use to keep their identity off the public record.
Certified index
The government’s official list of what’s in the record behind the decision being challenged. Briefing usually follows it.
Motion to govern
The parties’ proposal to the court for how a case should go on from here.
FOIA
The Freedom of Information Act, which lets anyone ask a federal agency for its records, and sue if it refuses.

The stamp on a ruling

Granted
The court said yes to the request on this card, whichever side made it.
Denied
The court said no to the request on this card.
Affirmed
The court above agreed with the court below and left its ruling as it was.
Referred
The court didn’t decide the request yet. It passed it on to the judges who will decide the whole case.