Supreme Court has granted certiorari, but deferred the request for an emergency injunction. Oral argument will be held on January 10 (9 days before the law becomes effective), presumably meaning that they'll vote after argument and grant the injunction requested by TikTok if (but only if) there are five votes to strike down the law.

Miscellaneous Order (12/18/2024)

@JohnHughes it is possible they'll grant a temporary injunction at some future date but ultimately decide against TikTok

TikTok lost its legal challenge this morning. To prevail now their only options are to petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc or to the US Supreme Court.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/06/business/media/tiktok-ban-court-decision.html?unlocked_article_code=1.fU4.zo9_.YAvrQO-B7p7K&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

nytimes.com

WaPo: "Trump expected to try to halt TikTok ban, allies say"

this was mostly already known, but recent explicit confirmation that trump is gonna try and stop this

@Ziddletwix this has to mean nothing, no? Will companies service TikTok when it's unlawful?

@Ziddletwix if the law is repealed before any court issues an injunction against it this resolves NO. If there is a preliminary injunction and then the case is mooted by repealing the law this resolves YES.

(Comment deleted! Never mind, I see you clarified this long ago.)

@JonathanRay To clarify a scenario that could apply here, if DC Circuit or SCOTUS “stays” application of the law (rather than actually enjoining it as unconstitutional), merely so that SCOTUS can have time to consider a cert petition and take the case — and Trump withdraws or Congress changes the law while the stay is in effect, I assume this still resolves “no”? Just want to make sure this is a bet on what courts will do on the merits, as opposed to a bet on whether the effective date of the law gets delayed and then Trump changes it even after courts upheld it.

Obviously if SCOTUS does take the case I assume market would remain open until either they rule or law is changed — since it would still resolve yes if SCOTUS (or en banc DC Circuit) reversed the panel decision and enjoins the law.

@JohnHughes I previously wrote:
"1. an injunction that is later removed or successfully appealed is not sufficient for a yes resolution
2. If congress repeals/modifies the law, mooting the lawsuit, while the injunction was still in place, that counts for a yes resolution."

Temporary injunctions/stays count towards a yes resolution if still in place when the law is repealed. Aside, in order to obtain a temporary injunction, TikTok would have to show a substantial probability of winning on the merits.

WSJ: "Court Appears Skeptical of TikTok’s Challenge to U.S. Ban"

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/tiktoks-u-s-future-hangs-in-the-balance-in-court-03bfefd7?st=2mAVvU&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

SCOTUS is very strong on first amendment issues. I think they would need to see some actual evidence that TikTok is a national security threat, and so far none has been made public. There isn't even any publicly available evidence that TikTok has ever shared data about Americans with the CCP. District court struck down a similar Montana law on first amendment grounds. https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/alario-v-knudsen

if they gave me loans i'd take you up on this, but as it stands it's not worth locking up mana for probably over a year. From Barrett's concurrence in NetChoice v Paxton:

Corporations, which are composed of human beings with First Amendment rights, possess First Amendment rights themselves. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310, 365 (2010); cf. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U. S. 682, 706–707 (2014). But foreign persons and corporations located abroad do not. Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc., 591 U. S. 430, 433–436 (2020). So a social-media platform’s foreign ownership and control over its contentmoderation decisions might affect whether laws overriding those decisions trigger First Amendment scrutiny.

more amicus briefs in support of TikTok for the ninth circuit appeal of Knudsen v Alario
https://www.aclu.org/cases/alario-v-knudsen-amicus
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/amicus-brief-support-plaintiffs-appellees-and-affirmance-alario-v-knudsen

The first amicus is framed as Americans having a first amendment right to access foreign media, so that argument wouldn't apply.

Amicus briefs are not an especially reliable source of information to predict how the court will actually hold

@SemioticRivalry , you wouldn't need to wait a year here. The D.C. Circuit indicated it will hold oral argument in September (see below), which likely will cause significant movement in this market. Obviously, it won't be a final resolution, but personally, I'm betting there will be a meaningful move after people hear federal judges actually analyze these issues. Often you get a pretty clear sense of how the court is going to rule based on the questions they ask.

01218626648.pdf (pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com)

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/14/1251086753/tiktok-ban-first-amendment-lawsuit-free-speech-project-texas

This market is proof you need real dollars to get real predictions. 50% is hilariously off base.

Can't wait to win worthless mana.

@redacted What real money odds would you take :o)

@redacted Let's see if another order of magnitude helps!

@ManifoldPolitics Love it!

@CalebW I’d make a $$$ market at 85-15. There isn’t a single constitutional lawyer who has been asked and said this was OK, but national security is a bogeyman argument (but there’s no evidence).

The only senators that walked out of the briefing concerned are the completely tech illiterate ones (Blumenthal et co)

@redacted I'd be interested in a few k of real money action at better odds than that, DM me if interested in trying to figure something out :)

@CalebW Its a lot of work with escrow, but I'd also be open. If only this market let us do that would be even better

When Huawei was banned in a similar bill, they argued in court using the "Bill of Attainder Clauses" and the court ruled that it's the right of the Congress to do so. Therefore, it seems unlikely it would be different for TikTok.

The strongest argument for TikTok's case would be the first amendment, arguing that the bill is in place to control and limit speech. The government will in turn argue that this bill does not regulate speech, just the ownership of the corporation. In addition, it's not clear if the court will protect the constitutional right of free speech when it comes to foreign entities. In the past it has been less protected (E.g. the government does not allow foreign ownership of media company, and Rupert Murdoch had to become a citizen to buy Fox News).

I think that TikTok will face an uphill battle here, however, it's clear that they will do whatever it takes to fight it. In addition, we are facing a potential administration change, and Trump seems to no longer support the TikTok Divestment bill, so he could theoretically decide to drop it by not protecting it in court if elected.

clarification: if they don’t pass into law the bill that originally passed the house in Q1, or something very similar, this resolves N/A

@JonathanRay I haven’t done enough research yet to decide if the revised bill is similar enough to not N/A this

@JonathanRay After clicking around the news for a few minutes I’m ruling that the new bill is substantially the same so if it passes this won’t N/A