From Trump’s just-filed friend-of-the-court temporary within the TikTok divestment case:
Introduction and Curiosity of Amicus Curiae …
Amicus curiae President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) is the forty fifth and shortly to be the forty seventh President of america of America. On January 20, 2025, President Trump will assume accountability for america’ nationwide safety, international coverage, and different very important government features. This case presents an unprecedented, novel, and tough stress between free-speech rights on one facet, and international coverage and national-security issues on the opposite. Because the incoming Chief Government, President Trump has a very highly effective curiosity in and accountability for these national-security and foreign-policy questions, and he’s the precise constitutional actor to resolve the dispute by political means.
President Trump additionally has a singular curiosity within the First Modification points raised on this case. By his historic victory on November 5, 2024, President Trump obtained a strong electoral mandate from American voters to guard the free-speech rights of all Individuals—together with the 170 million Individuals who use TikTok. President Trump is uniquely located to vindicate these pursuits, as a result of “the President and the Vice President of america are the one elected officers who signify all of the voters within the Nation.”
Furthermore, President Trump is without doubt one of the strongest, prolific, and influential customers of social media in historical past. Constant together with his commanding presence on this space, President Trump at present has 14.7 million followers on TikTok with whom he actively communicates, permitting him to guage TikTok’s significance as a singular medium for freedom of expression, together with core political speech. Certainly, President Trump and his rival each used TikTok to attach with voters throughout the latest Presidential election marketing campaign, with President Trump doing a lot extra successfully. As this Courtroom instructs, the First Modification’s “constitutional assure has its fullest and most pressing software exactly to the conduct of campaigns for political workplace.”
Additional, President Trump is the founding father of one other resoundingly profitable social-media platform, Fact Social. This offers him an in-depth perspective on the extraordinary authorities energy tried to be exercised on this case—the ability of the federal authorities to successfully shut down a social-media platform favored by tens of tens of millions of Individuals, based mostly largely on issues about disfavored content material on that platform. President Trump is keenly conscious of the historic risks introduced by such a precedent. For instance, shortly after the Act was handed, Brazil banned the social-media platform X (previously referred to as Twitter) for greater than a month, based mostly largely on that authorities’s disfavor of political speech on X. See, e.g., Brazil’s Supreme Courtroom Lifts Ban on Social Media Web site X, CBS NEWS (Oct. 8, 2024).
In mild of those pursuits—together with, most significantly, his overarching accountability for america’ nationwide safety and international coverage— President Trump opposes banning TikTok in america at this juncture, and seeks the power to resolve the problems at hand by political means as soon as he takes workplace. On September 4, 2024, President Trump posted on Fact Social, “FOR ALL THOSE THAT WANT TO SAVE TIK TOK IN AMERICA, VOTE TRUMP!”
Moreover, President Trump alone possesses the consummate dealmaking experience, the electoral mandate, and the political will to barter a decision to save lots of the platform whereas addressing the nationwide safety issues expressed by the Authorities—issues which President Trump himself has acknowledged. See, e.g., Government Order No. 13942, Addressing the Menace Posed by TikTok, 85 Fed. Reg. 48637, 48637 (Aug. 6, 2020); Relating to the Acquisition of Musical.ly by ByteDance Ltd., 85 Fed. Reg. 51297, 51297 (Aug. 14, 2020). Certainly, President Trump’s first Time period was highlighted by a collection of coverage triumphs achieved by historic offers, and he has a fantastic prospect of success on this newest nationwide safety and international coverage endeavor.
The 270-day deadline imposed by the Act expires on January 19, 2025—sooner or later earlier than President Trump will assume Workplace because the forty seventh President of america. This unlucky timing interferes with President Trump’s potential to handle america’ international coverage and to pursue a decision to each shield nationwide safety and save a social-media platform that gives a preferred automobile for 170 million Individuals to train their core First Modification rights. The Act imposes the timing constraint, furthermore, with out specifying any compelling authorities curiosity in that specific deadline. In reality, the Act itself contemplates a 90-day extension to the deadline below sure specified circumstances. Pet.App.97a, § 2(a)(3)(A)-(C).
President Trump, due to this fact, has a compelling curiosity because the incoming embodiment of the Government Department in seeing the statutory deadline stayed to permit his incoming Administration the chance to hunt a negotiated decision of those questions. If profitable, such a decision would obviate the necessity for this Courtroom to determine the traditionally difficult First Modification query introduced right here on the present, extremely expedited foundation.
Abstract of Argument
President Trump takes no place on the deserves of the dispute. As an alternative, he urges the Courtroom to remain the statute’s efficient date to permit his incoming Administration to pursue a negotiated decision that would stop a nationwide shutdown of TikTok, thus preserving the First Modification rights of tens of tens of millions of Individuals, whereas additionally addressing the federal government’s nationwide safety issues. If achieved, such a decision would obviate the necessity for this Courtroom to determine extraordinarily tough questions on the present, extremely expedited schedule.
There may be ample justification for the Courtroom to remain the January 19 deadline—by which divestment for ByteDance should happen, or else TikTok will face an efficient shut-down in america—whereas it considers the deserves of the case. First, this Courtroom has aptly cautioned in opposition to deciding “unprecedented” and “very vital constitutional questions” on a “extremely expedited foundation.” As a result of Act’s deadline for divestment and the timing of the D.C. Circuit’s resolution, this Courtroom now faces the prospect of deciding extraordinarily tough questions on precisely such a “extremely expedited foundation.” Staying this deadline would offer respiration house for the Courtroom to think about the questions on a extra measured schedule, and it might present President Trump’s incoming Administration a possibility to pursue a negotiated decision of the battle. Certainly, the Courtroom just lately pursued the same course in Zubik v. Burwell, vacating lower-court choices and pausing the enforcement of HHS’s contraceptive mandate in opposition to spiritual organizations to “enable the events adequate time to resolve any excellent points between them.”
Second, three options of the Act elevate issues about potential legislative encroachment on prerogatives of the Government Department below Article II. First, the Act dictates that the President should make a selected national-security dedication as to TikTok alone, whereas granting the President a larger “diploma of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction” as to all different social-media platforms. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936). Second, the Act mandates that the President should train his energy over international affairs “by an interagency course of” commanded by Congress, as a substitute of exercising his sole discretion over the deliberative processes of the Government Department.
Third, the Act—because of its signing date—now imposes a deadline for divestment that falls sooner or later earlier than the incoming Administration takes energy. Particularly when considered together, these distinctive options of the Act elevate vital issues about potential legislative encroachment upon the President’s prerogative to handle the Nation’s geopolitical, strategic relationships total, and with certainly one of our most vital counterparts, China, particularly. That is an space the place the Nation should “communicate … with one voice,” and “[t]hat voice should be the President’s.” Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1, 14 (2015) (quotation omitted).
Third, the First Modification implications of the federal authorities’s efficient shuttering of a social- media platform utilized by 170 million Individuals are sweeping and troubling. There are legitimate issues that the Act might set a harmful international precedent by exercising the extraordinary energy to close down a whole social-media platform based mostly, largely, on issues about disfavored speech on that platform. Maybe not coincidentally, quickly after the Act was handed, one other main Western democracy—Brazil— shut down one other complete social-media platform, X (previously referred to as Twitter), for greater than a month, apparently based mostly on that authorities’s want to suppress disfavored political speech.
Furthermore, regardless of the Act’s huge affect on the speech of 170 million TikTok customers, the D.C. Circuit’s opinion grants solely cursory consideration to the free-speech pursuits of Individuals, whereas granting decisive weight and near-plenary deference to the views of national-security officers. But the historical past of the previous a number of years, and past, consists of troubling, well- documented abuses by such federal officers in looking for the social-media censorship of extraordinary Individuals.
In mild of the novelty and issue of this case, the Courtroom ought to think about staying the statutory deadline to grant extra respiration house to handle these points. The Act itself contemplates the potential for a 90-day extension, indicating that the 270-day deadline lacks talismanic significance. Such a keep would vitally grant President Trump the chance to pursue a political decision that would obviate the Courtroom’s have to determine these constitutionally vital questions….
Conclusion
President Trump takes no place on the underlying deserves of this dispute. As an alternative, he respectfully requests that the Courtroom think about staying the Act’s deadline for divestment of January 19, 2025, whereas it considers the deserves of this case, thus allowing President Trump’s incoming Administration the chance to pursue a political decision of the questions at situation within the case.
The temporary was written by John Sauer, whom Trump has tapped because the incoming nominee for Solicitor Basic.
From Trump’s just-filed friend-of-the-court temporary within the TikTok divestment case:
Introduction and Curiosity of Amicus Curiae …
Amicus curiae President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) is the forty fifth and shortly to be the forty seventh President of america of America. On January 20, 2025, President Trump will assume accountability for america’ nationwide safety, international coverage, and different very important government features. This case presents an unprecedented, novel, and tough stress between free-speech rights on one facet, and international coverage and national-security issues on the opposite. Because the incoming Chief Government, President Trump has a very highly effective curiosity in and accountability for these national-security and foreign-policy questions, and he’s the precise constitutional actor to resolve the dispute by political means.
President Trump additionally has a singular curiosity within the First Modification points raised on this case. By his historic victory on November 5, 2024, President Trump obtained a strong electoral mandate from American voters to guard the free-speech rights of all Individuals—together with the 170 million Individuals who use TikTok. President Trump is uniquely located to vindicate these pursuits, as a result of “the President and the Vice President of america are the one elected officers who signify all of the voters within the Nation.”
Furthermore, President Trump is without doubt one of the strongest, prolific, and influential customers of social media in historical past. Constant together with his commanding presence on this space, President Trump at present has 14.7 million followers on TikTok with whom he actively communicates, permitting him to guage TikTok’s significance as a singular medium for freedom of expression, together with core political speech. Certainly, President Trump and his rival each used TikTok to attach with voters throughout the latest Presidential election marketing campaign, with President Trump doing a lot extra successfully. As this Courtroom instructs, the First Modification’s “constitutional assure has its fullest and most pressing software exactly to the conduct of campaigns for political workplace.”
Additional, President Trump is the founding father of one other resoundingly profitable social-media platform, Fact Social. This offers him an in-depth perspective on the extraordinary authorities energy tried to be exercised on this case—the ability of the federal authorities to successfully shut down a social-media platform favored by tens of tens of millions of Individuals, based mostly largely on issues about disfavored content material on that platform. President Trump is keenly conscious of the historic risks introduced by such a precedent. For instance, shortly after the Act was handed, Brazil banned the social-media platform X (previously referred to as Twitter) for greater than a month, based mostly largely on that authorities’s disfavor of political speech on X. See, e.g., Brazil’s Supreme Courtroom Lifts Ban on Social Media Web site X, CBS NEWS (Oct. 8, 2024).
In mild of those pursuits—together with, most significantly, his overarching accountability for america’ nationwide safety and international coverage— President Trump opposes banning TikTok in america at this juncture, and seeks the power to resolve the problems at hand by political means as soon as he takes workplace. On September 4, 2024, President Trump posted on Fact Social, “FOR ALL THOSE THAT WANT TO SAVE TIK TOK IN AMERICA, VOTE TRUMP!”
Moreover, President Trump alone possesses the consummate dealmaking experience, the electoral mandate, and the political will to barter a decision to save lots of the platform whereas addressing the nationwide safety issues expressed by the Authorities—issues which President Trump himself has acknowledged. See, e.g., Government Order No. 13942, Addressing the Menace Posed by TikTok, 85 Fed. Reg. 48637, 48637 (Aug. 6, 2020); Relating to the Acquisition of Musical.ly by ByteDance Ltd., 85 Fed. Reg. 51297, 51297 (Aug. 14, 2020). Certainly, President Trump’s first Time period was highlighted by a collection of coverage triumphs achieved by historic offers, and he has a fantastic prospect of success on this newest nationwide safety and international coverage endeavor.
The 270-day deadline imposed by the Act expires on January 19, 2025—sooner or later earlier than President Trump will assume Workplace because the forty seventh President of america. This unlucky timing interferes with President Trump’s potential to handle america’ international coverage and to pursue a decision to each shield nationwide safety and save a social-media platform that gives a preferred automobile for 170 million Individuals to train their core First Modification rights. The Act imposes the timing constraint, furthermore, with out specifying any compelling authorities curiosity in that specific deadline. In reality, the Act itself contemplates a 90-day extension to the deadline below sure specified circumstances. Pet.App.97a, § 2(a)(3)(A)-(C).
President Trump, due to this fact, has a compelling curiosity because the incoming embodiment of the Government Department in seeing the statutory deadline stayed to permit his incoming Administration the chance to hunt a negotiated decision of those questions. If profitable, such a decision would obviate the necessity for this Courtroom to determine the traditionally difficult First Modification query introduced right here on the present, extremely expedited foundation.
Abstract of Argument
President Trump takes no place on the deserves of the dispute. As an alternative, he urges the Courtroom to remain the statute’s efficient date to permit his incoming Administration to pursue a negotiated decision that would stop a nationwide shutdown of TikTok, thus preserving the First Modification rights of tens of tens of millions of Individuals, whereas additionally addressing the federal government’s nationwide safety issues. If achieved, such a decision would obviate the necessity for this Courtroom to determine extraordinarily tough questions on the present, extremely expedited schedule.
There may be ample justification for the Courtroom to remain the January 19 deadline—by which divestment for ByteDance should happen, or else TikTok will face an efficient shut-down in america—whereas it considers the deserves of the case. First, this Courtroom has aptly cautioned in opposition to deciding “unprecedented” and “very vital constitutional questions” on a “extremely expedited foundation.” As a result of Act’s deadline for divestment and the timing of the D.C. Circuit’s resolution, this Courtroom now faces the prospect of deciding extraordinarily tough questions on precisely such a “extremely expedited foundation.” Staying this deadline would offer respiration house for the Courtroom to think about the questions on a extra measured schedule, and it might present President Trump’s incoming Administration a possibility to pursue a negotiated decision of the battle. Certainly, the Courtroom just lately pursued the same course in Zubik v. Burwell, vacating lower-court choices and pausing the enforcement of HHS’s contraceptive mandate in opposition to spiritual organizations to “enable the events adequate time to resolve any excellent points between them.”
Second, three options of the Act elevate issues about potential legislative encroachment on prerogatives of the Government Department below Article II. First, the Act dictates that the President should make a selected national-security dedication as to TikTok alone, whereas granting the President a larger “diploma of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction” as to all different social-media platforms. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936). Second, the Act mandates that the President should train his energy over international affairs “by an interagency course of” commanded by Congress, as a substitute of exercising his sole discretion over the deliberative processes of the Government Department.
Third, the Act—because of its signing date—now imposes a deadline for divestment that falls sooner or later earlier than the incoming Administration takes energy. Particularly when considered together, these distinctive options of the Act elevate vital issues about potential legislative encroachment upon the President’s prerogative to handle the Nation’s geopolitical, strategic relationships total, and with certainly one of our most vital counterparts, China, particularly. That is an space the place the Nation should “communicate … with one voice,” and “[t]hat voice should be the President’s.” Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1, 14 (2015) (quotation omitted).
Third, the First Modification implications of the federal authorities’s efficient shuttering of a social- media platform utilized by 170 million Individuals are sweeping and troubling. There are legitimate issues that the Act might set a harmful international precedent by exercising the extraordinary energy to close down a whole social-media platform based mostly, largely, on issues about disfavored speech on that platform. Maybe not coincidentally, quickly after the Act was handed, one other main Western democracy—Brazil— shut down one other complete social-media platform, X (previously referred to as Twitter), for greater than a month, apparently based mostly on that authorities’s want to suppress disfavored political speech.
Furthermore, regardless of the Act’s huge affect on the speech of 170 million TikTok customers, the D.C. Circuit’s opinion grants solely cursory consideration to the free-speech pursuits of Individuals, whereas granting decisive weight and near-plenary deference to the views of national-security officers. But the historical past of the previous a number of years, and past, consists of troubling, well- documented abuses by such federal officers in looking for the social-media censorship of extraordinary Individuals.
In mild of the novelty and issue of this case, the Courtroom ought to think about staying the statutory deadline to grant extra respiration house to handle these points. The Act itself contemplates the potential for a 90-day extension, indicating that the 270-day deadline lacks talismanic significance. Such a keep would vitally grant President Trump the chance to pursue a political decision that would obviate the Courtroom’s have to determine these constitutionally vital questions….
Conclusion
President Trump takes no place on the underlying deserves of this dispute. As an alternative, he respectfully requests that the Courtroom think about staying the Act’s deadline for divestment of January 19, 2025, whereas it considers the deserves of this case, thus allowing President Trump’s incoming Administration the chance to pursue a political decision of the questions at situation within the case.
The temporary was written by John Sauer, whom Trump has tapped because the incoming nominee for Solicitor Basic.
