This ruling will disappoint the app’s 170 million users in the United States. But it reflects eminently reasonable deference to the judgment of Congress.

Doesn’t the Constitution mean what it says? Doesn’t no law mean no law? Regrettably, today, no law means whatever the court says it means.

On Friday, the Supreme Court delivered a sweeping broadside against the First Amendment of the Constitution just days ahead of the coming to power of President-elect Donald Trump, who has pledged to rule as "dictator on day one.

TikTok is dead, long live TikTok. The social media app announced it would be returning to the United States mere hours after going dark to comply with a ban passed by legislators last year. The move came after President-elect Donald Trump promised to issue an executive order that would roll back the effective date of the ban,

Even as the Supreme Court upheld Congress' mandate that TikTok's Chinese owner sell the platform or shut it down, the First Amendment still guarantees the

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech or of the press…” — First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution During the oral argument before the Supreme Court in the famous Pentagon Papers case,

The company argued that the law, citing potential Chinese threats to the nation’s security, violated its First Amendment ... wildly popular app TikTok in the United States starting on Sunday.

It’s a strong stand for the First Amendment and against arbitrary censorship. We will work with President Trump on a long-term solution that keeps TikTok in the United States.” The TikTok ban ...

“It’s a strong stand for the First Amendment and against arbitrary censorship. We will work with President Trump on a long-term solution that keeps TikTok in the United States.” This follows ...

In his executive orders, Trump repeatedly asserted that he can make and interpret law, alongside Congress and the courts.

A TikTok ban on hypothetical grounds of a national security threat directly undermines the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech.  So far, the United States government has not made effective efforts to “limit no more speech than necessary” to protect national security.

When the Supreme Court upheld a law that banned TikTok from the US, it seemed well aware that its ruling could resonate far beyond one app. The justices delivered an unsigned opinion with a quote from Justice Felix Frankfurter from 1944: “in considering the application of established legal rules to the ‘totally new problems’ raised by the airplane and radio,