Top lawmakers, First Amendment advocacy groups and President-elect Trump weighed in Friday on legislation that could ban TikTok in the U.S. as the Supreme Court prepares its case.

The court agreed last week to hear TikTok’s challenge to a law that would require China-based parent company ByteDance to withdraw from the app by Jan. 19 or face a ban.

The case is moving at a rapid pace, with oral arguments scheduled for January 10 and the decision coming just days before the ban takes effect.

Let’s take a look at who supports each side in this blockbuster First Amendment case.

Advocate for a TikTok ban 

The Biden administration, which is defending the law, argues it complies with the First Amendment because concerns about free speech are superseded by the government’s compelling national security interests.

“The First Amendment would not have required the United States to tolerate Soviet ownership and control of American radio stations (or other communications channels and critical infrastructure) during the Cold War. Today’s foreign enemies,” U.S. Deputy Attorney General Elizabeth Frelloga wrote in a government briefing Friday.

Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Minority Leader

Senator Mitch McConnell last week urged the court to deny TikTok’s request to delay the law.

McConnell’s brief, filed just before the court decided to take up the case in its entirety, rejected TikTok’s First Amendment claims and objected to delaying the Jan. 19 deadline.

“The preposterous notion that TikTok has expressive rights to promote the CCP censorship regime is absurd,” Michael A. Fragoso, a lawyer for McConnell, wrote. “Should Congress have allowed Nikita Khrushchev to buy CBS and replace The Bing Crosby Show with Alexander Nevsky?”

Chinese Communist Party Selection Committee 

Representatives John Mullenar (R-Mich.) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), chairman and ranking member of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, filed a joint brief detailing Congress’s “extensive legislative fact-finding” on the Chinese Communist Party. . Threat posed by China.

“Accordingly, Congress has determined that addressing existing and future threats to designated social media applications, including TikTok, requires removing foreign adversary control from the applications,” the attorneys wrote.

Former FCC Chairman hideout pie

Ajit Pai, who led the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) during the Trump administration, submitted a memorandum supporting the divestment or ban law along with Thomas Feddo, who previously oversaw the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

The pair pointed to their own experience, arguing the government’s concerns were “well-founded” and the law’s approach was “nothing new or unusual.”

“The DOJ’s concerns are well founded, as the amici curiae are well-informed through previous government service,” they wrote. “The United States has long had significant and legitimate public policy concerns about China-based corporate control of businesses in the United States generally. Recently, I have been particularly concerned about TikTok. “

Mike Pence’s political advocacy group 

Advancing American Freedom, a conservative political advocacy group founded by former Vice President Mike Pence, submitted a brief arguing that a ruling against TikTok would effectively condone the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

“The Chinese Communist Party does not respect freedom of speech in China or the United States. “The First Amendment is not and should not be read as a means of giving the Chinese government the power to do what the U.S. government cannot: manipulate what Americans can say and hear,” the group wrote.

Two former attorneys general 

Two former attorneys general from Republican administrations filed a joint brief supporting the ban. Michael Mukasey, who worked under former President George W. Bush, and Jeff Sessions, who worked under Trump.

They were joined at the briefing by more than a dozen former national security officials.

“Failed to effectively address the ongoing national security threat that TikTok’s relationship with the Chinese Communist Party poses to Americans and their data, TikTok is now seeking to brand itself as an American fagot, citing the First Amendment as a key reason why the government should not do so. . The sale can be forced,” the lawyer involved wrote.

“But this law has nothing to do with the First Amendment.”

22 Republican-led states 

Twenty-two Republican state attorneys general, led by Montana and Virginia, support a TikTok ban, saying “the states are grateful that Congress has acted to protect the American people.”

The report cites TikTok’s ongoing challenge to a Montana law banning the platform from the state, saying TikTok has taken contradictory positions.

“TikTok asks this court to declare that the people’s representatives at all levels of government are powerless to prevent hostile foreign powers from spying on Americans. “TikTok and the Chinese Communist Party cannot hide behind the First Amendment,” the summary reads.

TikTok Preservation 

TikTok asked judges to strike down the ban, which it said violated the free speech rights of the platform and its tens of millions of U.S. users, describing the law as an “unprecedented step” that is “at war with the First Amendment.”

“Petitioners do not dispute Congress’s compelling interest in protecting the security of this nation or the many weapons needed to do so. But those weapons do not include suppressing the speech of Americans because other Americans may be persuaded,” TikTok wrote briefly.

erase

Trump formally joined the lawsuit for the first time on Friday, arguing that the judges should delay the ban in the meantime since he can negotiate a resolution to save TikTok once he takes office.

Trump took no position on the First Amendment issue at the heart of the case, but said a political settlement could eliminate the need for courts to resolve contentious free speech issues.

“Only President Trump has the impeccable dealmaking expertise, electoral power, and political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing national security concerns,” said U.S. Attorney General D. John Sauer, President Trump’s nominee. “I have it,” he wrote. He is tasked with managing the government’s defense against embargo.

Senators Ed Markey, Rand Paul, and Representative Ro Khanna.

A brief filed by Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Representative Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) argues that the law does not withstand First Amendment scrutiny. jointly submitted.

All three lawmakers have previously expressed concerns about the sales ban. The report submitted on Friday argues there are “less restrictive” alternatives that could address the government’s concerns.

“History has shown time and time again that governments have been too hasty in banning speech when faced with foreign interference or security risks. “This record will likely lead this court to view the government’s argument with skepticism that national security requires a speech ban,” they wrote.

First Amendment and Internet Advocates 

The American Civil Liberties Union has partnered with Internet advocacy groups such as the First Amendment Coalition and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology to support TikTok .

The groups said the federal government has not presented enough evidence to justify forcing millions of Americans to opt out of platforms that are “uniquely suited to the way they want to speak and share.”

Free speech groups such as the Knight First Amendment Institute and the Foundation for Individual Rights Expression (FIRE) have similarly filed briefs supporting TikTok. Conservative influencer CJ Pearson also joined FIRE’s briefing.

social and racial justice organizations; 

Several social and racial justice organizations, such as Stop AAPI Hate and LGBTQ media advocacy organization GLAAD, are also supporting TikTok in the high court.

They praised the platform as “a modern digital town square that empowers diverse communities often ignored by other media outlets.”

“The Amici also make serious claims that the government’s rationale for censoring 170 million American voices on TikTok stems from and perpetuates our country’s history of weaponizing textual national security issues to demonize immigrants and minorities.” “We have concerns,” they briefly explain.