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

A couple of clarifications of edge cases:
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.

read the full text of the bill here: https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Protecting%20Americans%20From%20Foriegn%20Adversary%20Controlled%20Applications_3.5.24.pdf

It sounds so broad that it could basically ban every popular social app developed by any company located in any enemy country (the official list is just China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea). It's as if we banned all Russian books during the cold war just in case they might contain communist propaganda.

Also section 3 (limiting the ways you can challenge it in court) seems dubious. If it's unconstitutional it's unconstitutional and there is no statute of limitations on that.

"The Constitution's Bill of Attainder Clauses, found in Article I, Section 9 and Article I, Section 10, prohibit both Congress and state legislatures from passing targeted statutes imposing punishment on specified actors without trial. The Supreme Court has never decided whether the Clauses apply to corporations."
https://dlj.law.duke.edu/article/corporations-under-the-bill-of-attainder-clause-newman-vol69-iss4/#:~:text=The%20Constitution's%20Bill%20of%20Attainder,the%20Clauses%20apply%20to%20corporations.

@JonathanRay https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10567#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20outlined%20the,2)%20imposes%20punishment%20without%20trial.

"Legislation that targets a specific corporation may also satisfy the specificity requirement. While the Supreme Court has not decided whether the Bill of Attainder Clause protects entities such as corporations, several lower federal courts have either held or assumed that it does."

@JonathanRay https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/is-a-ban-on-tiktok-a-bill-of-attainder