JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – The clock is tick-tocking on the Supreme Court’s latest calendar. Several things before the nation’s highest court have national significance.
First, let’s revisit what’s happening with the social media site TikTok.
On Jan. 20, the Supreme Court upheld the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary-Controlled Applications Act. It’s the law that requires Chinese government–controlled corporation Bytedance to divest TikTok or have the application barred from U.S.-based platforms
But President Donald Trump signed an executive order pausing the TikTok ban. It provided a liability shield to business partners of the popular video app.
What is interesting about the court’s decision is what the Supreme Court did not do.
First, it did not accept the premise that all regulation of social media requires heightened scrutiny. The court signaled a genuine openness to the notion that new technologies raise difficult questions.
And some of the regulation of those new technologies may have only incidental impacts on speech and not be direct regulation of speech itself.
Did the court do the right thing? Does it send a message that the Supreme Court may be open to finally moving past the broken 1970s model of First Amendment corporate speech rights?
Then we must ask was pausing the ban the right thing? Those who analyzed the move say Trump’s intentions were self-serving.
And, where to from here? Where does this all land?
Of course, if there is a buyer, then all is said and done. Will Bytedance sell?
General Atlantic CEO Bill Ford, who is on the Board of Directors for the Chinese parent company, said selling would be “in everybody’s interest.”
“We’ll get on with it… in terms of negotiating what might work …“ he told Axios. ”The Chinese government, the U.S. government and the company and the board all have to be involved in this conversation.”
Now to another topic. The nation’s high court is also considering a case dubbed “The Moment of Threat” doctrine. It addresses how much time can be taken into consideration when police kill people.
The case stems from what was described as a routine traffic stop on a Texas highway that escalated into a fatal shooting that left the 24-year-old driver bleeding to death while still in the driver’s seat.
What happened during those seconds and the minutes prior to and during the April 2016 incident is now central to the Supreme Court case.
The high court’s decision could make it easier — or harder — to hold police officers accountable for the use of excessive force.
In another high-profile case, Trump issued a patently unconstitutional executive order on his first day in office.
The goal was to abolish birthright citizenship for children of millions of immigrants in the United States. His directive applies not only to the children of undocumented people but also to children of a vast group of immigrants who are lawfully present, including visa holders who’ve lived here for years.
There are a myriad of lawsuits in the lower courts, and the case will undoubtedly wind up before the Supreme Court.
Birthright citizenship is unique: a fundamental right at the heart of our constitutional order, rooted in the plain text and original meaning of the 14th Amendment, enshrined in well over a century of precedent and practice.
The fundamental question is, will the Supreme Court justices uphold birthright citizenship?
Legal analysts say they should. There are three main reasons: one legal, one practical, and another related to the court’s own power.
Some of those same analysts believe it’s time for the court to flex its muscle and remind the president who really calls the shots on matters of legal dispute. Time will tell what direction the court takes.
There is another case before the high court that has to do with First Amendment questions. This one is the Free Speech Coalition v Paxton, a lawsuit challenging a Texas law requiring websites to verify the ages of people seeking adult content, such as pornography.
Free speech advocates and members of the adult entertainment industry sued to block the law and are being represented by the ACLU.
The question the court must answer in this case is, “Does strict scrutiny apply?” It’s an important but tricky question.
Everyone agrees children should be protected from materials that can prove harmful to them. But concerns linger that the rights of adults are being infringed upon to access material, rights that are protected by the Constitution.
In this case, the justices are being asked to decide whether the Texas law should be subject to the highest standard of judicial review, “strict scrutiny.”
So, do the justices support government restrictions and narrowly tailor things or move to protect “constitutionally protected access?”
Constitutional law expert Rod Sullivan joins me on this week’s episode of Politics & Power to analyze these cases before the Supreme Court. Watch at 7 p.m. or 9 p.m. any time on demand on News4JAX.com, News4JAX+ and our YouTube Channel.