Today Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, unanimously upheld the constitutionality of a law saying that if Tik Tok does not divest itself from Chinese ownership that it is banned. The issue will land squarely on Trump's lap who campaigned on saving Tik Tok. However, this was not an executive action, it was a law passed by Congress with strong bipartisan support.
As for the decision I am surprised only by its per curiam nature (though my perception is there have been an increasing number of those recently). The Supreme Court is historically loathe to intervene when national security concerns are raised. Some time ago they were willing to allow the racist imprisonment in concentration camps of tens of thousands of innocent American citizens, without any due process, or even charge, because a president claimed it was necessary for national security.
To be sure, the national security concerns are more legitimate this time around. Though I am uncertain how valid the concern is when applied to simply private citizens posting everything from stupid cat videos to recipes. It is certainly a concern for government and critical industry users. Critical to the court's decision was the finding that the law was "content neutral" in that it did not discriminate for or against any particular perspective.
As for the decision I am surprised only by its per curiam nature (though my perception is there have been an increasing number of those recently). The Supreme Court is historically loathe to intervene when national security concerns are raised. Some time ago they were willing to allow the racist imprisonment in concentration camps of tens of thousands of innocent American citizens, without any due process, or even charge, because a president claimed it was necessary for national security.
To be sure, the national security concerns are more legitimate this time around. Though I am uncertain how valid the concern is when applied to simply private citizens posting everything from stupid cat videos to recipes. It is certainly a concern for government and critical industry users. Critical to the court's decision was the finding that the law was "content neutral" in that it did not discriminate for or against any particular perspective.
