Appeals Court Rejects TikTok’s Effort to Halt Divestment Mandate

This legal dispute centers around a congressional Act targeting the social media platform TikTok, and the petitioners’ efforts to delay its implementation. The Act establishes a 270-day timeline, potentially extendable by 90 days under specific presidential discretion, for certain prohibitions against TikTok to take effect. Following an expedited review requested by both parties to allow sufficient time for Supreme Court appeal, this court unanimously upheld the Act’s constitutionality on December 6, 2024, rejecting all petitioner claims. Consequently, the petitioners’ requests for a temporary injunction and appointment of a special master were deemed moot.

Now, the petitioners are seeking a “temporary pause” on the Act’s implementation, ostensibly to allow for more deliberate Supreme Court consideration and to provide the incoming presidential administration time to formulate its stance on the matter. However, this request effectively seeks an injunction against a presumptively valid Act of Congress, essentially suspending its enforcement and delaying the congressionally mandated timeline. This is particularly significant given that the 270-day clock, with its single potential 90-day extension, represents a deliberate legislative and executive decision regarding the Act’s effective date.

The petitioners’ request is unprecedented. They have not cited any legal precedent where a court, having already validated an Act’s constitutionality, subsequently enjoined its implementation pending Supreme Court review. Their argument relies on purported First Amendment violations, yet this court has already unanimously determined, applying heightened scrutiny, that the Act satisfies First Amendment requirements.

Considering this court’s comprehensive constitutional review, the ample time available for petitioners to pursue Supreme Court appeal, and the importance of preserving the Supreme Court’s prerogative to independently assess and determine any interim injunctive relief, this court finds a temporary injunction unwarranted. Granting such an injunction would not only undermine the considered legislative timeline but also preemptively constrain the Supreme Court’s discretion in managing its own proceedings.

The petitioners’ focus on the complexities of the case and the need for further deliberation overlooks the fact that this court has already provided an expedited review to facilitate timely Supreme Court engagement. The Act’s implementation timeline was deliberately structured to provide a limited window for such review, and this court’s swift action ensured adherence to that schedule. Further delay, in the form of a temporary injunction, would disrespect the legislative intent and potentially disrupt the careful balance struck by Congress in crafting the Act.

Furthermore, the argument regarding the incoming administration’s position lacks legal merit. The Act represents the current legislative and executive will, and its implementation schedule should not be subject to the potential policy shifts of a future administration. While a new administration might ultimately revise or repeal the Act, such considerations are outside the scope of this court’s review. The focus must remain on the current law and the timely execution of its provisions, especially after a thorough constitutional review.

In conclusion, the petitioners’ request for a “temporary pause” is effectively a request to suspend a valid Act of Congress, a power this court should not exercise after having already upheld the Act’s constitutionality. The petitioners have failed to identify any comparable legal precedent supporting such extraordinary relief. The existing timeframe provides sufficient opportunity for Supreme Court review, and this court’s decision preserves the Supreme Court’s discretion to determine any interim measures. Granting the requested injunction would not only contravene established legal principles but also disrespect the carefully considered legislative timeline established by Congress. The petitioners’ arguments, grounded in previously rejected First Amendment claims and speculative future administrative actions, do not justify such an unprecedented intervention.