��֭����

Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit  that the law to ban TikTok in the United States did not violate Americans’ First Amendment rights. Never before has Congress taken the extraordinary step of effectively banning a platform for communication, let alone one used by half the country.

The First Amendment requires an explanation of why such a dramatic restriction of the right to speak and receive information is necessary, and compelling evidence to support it. The government failed to provide either.

What little Congress did place on the public record includes statements from lawmakers raising diffuse concerns about national security and, more disturbingly, their desire to control the American public’s information diet in a way that strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. 

Today, FIREand a coalition of organizations filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to reverse the decision.

FIRE is proud to be joined by the following organizations and individuals for today’s brief:

• The Institute for Justice
• Reason Foundation
• The Future of Free Speech
• The Woodhull Freedom Foundation
• The First Amendment Lawyers Association
• Stop Child Predators
• The Pelican Institute for Public Policy 
• CJ Pearson

Will Creeley, legal director at ��֭����: “The government doesn’t have the power to pull the plug on TikTok without demonstrating exactly why such a dramatic step is absolutely necessary. It has failed to publicly lay out the case for cutting off an avenue of expression that 170 million of us use. The First Amendment requires a lot more than just the government’s say-so. Fifty years after the publication of the Pentagon Papers, Americans understand that invoking ‘national security’ doesn’t grant the government free rein to censor. By failing to properly hold the government to its constitutionally required burden of proof, the court’s decision erodes First Amendment rights now and in the future.”

Jacob Mchangama, executive director of The Future of Free Speech and senior fellow at ��֭����: “For decades, the United States has been the global gold standard for free speech protections. The unprecedented bipartisan push to effectively shut down TikTok — an online platform where millions exercise their right to free expression and access information — represents a troubling shift from this proud legacy. If enacted, this ban would make the U.S. the first free and open democracy to impose such sweeping restrictions, drawing uncomfortable parallels with authoritarian regimes like Somalia, Iran, and Afghanistan, which use similar measures to suppress dissent and control their populations. This is not just about a single app; it is a litmus test for the resilience of First Amendment principles in the digital age. The Supreme Court must ensure that Congress is held to the highest standard before permitting actions of such profound consequence. A TikTok ban risks setting a dangerous precedent that undermines the very freedoms distinguishing democracies from autocracies."

The D.C. Circuit’s decision justifies the Act’s sweeping censorship by invoking “free speech fundamentals.” In so doing, it confuses the First Amendment values at stake, and sacrifices our constitutional tradition of debate and dialogue for enforced silence. The D.C. Circuit’s misguided reasoning is sharply at odds with longstanding First Amendment precedent, violating the constitutional protections it claims to preserve. Instead of following the instructive example set by Taiwan, which has eschewed a blanket TikTok ban in favor of robust counterspeech, the D.C. Circuit’s logic echoes the authoritarianism of North Korea and Iran.

READ THE FULL BRIEF BELOW