FIRST ON FOX: Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his appeal of a ruling handed down by his state's highest court invalidating a 2013 law that requires minors seeking an abortion to obtain notarized written consent from a parent or guardian.
The law also includes a judicial bypass provision, allowing minors to seek court approval for an abortion without parental consent.
The Montana Supreme Court struck down the Parental Consent for Abortion Act in 2024, ruling it violates a minor’s fundamental right to privacy under the state constitution by conditioning access to abortion on parental consent.
The court acknowledged parents have a right to direct the care and custody of their children but determined those rights don't override the "fundamental" right of a minor child to seek an abortion.
Justice Laurie McKinnon, writing for the Montana Supreme Court, said "a minor's right to control her reproductive decisions is among the most fundamental of the rights she possesses" and that the state failed to demonstrate a compelling need for the law to protect minors, Reuters reported at the time.
Knudsen's appeal asks the U.S. Supreme Court to address whether parental rights include the ability to participate in decisions about a minor child’s medical care, including abortion.
The case highlights the ongoing debate over parental authority after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.
"SCOTUS should hear the case and reverse the radical Montana Supreme Court’s bad decision allowing minors to receive abortions without parental consent," Knudsen said in a statement to Fox News Digital.
"A child’s right to privacy does not supersede a parent’s fundamental right to direct the care and upbringing of their child. Until we get clarity from the Supreme Court, the health and safety of young Montanans seeking abortions is at risk."
The outcome could have broad implications for abortion access and parental consent laws nationwide because several states have passed "shield laws" recently, protecting medical providers from legal fallout for performing gender transition surgeries and abortions on minors.
For Knudsen's case to be heard before the court, at least four justices must agree to review it.
Fox News Digital has reached out to Planned Parenthood Montana for comment.
The Supreme Court on Friday heard oral arguments in a fast-tracked case over the future of TikTok, a Chinese-owned social media app that will be barred from operating in the U.S. in just nine days barring divestiture or eleventh-hour intervention from the high court.
At issue is the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, a law signed by President Biden that passed Congress in April with bipartisan approval. The act gave TikTok either nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be removed from U.S.-based app stores and hosting services.
On Friday, lawyers for the Biden administration reiterated their argument that TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses a "grave" national security risk for American users.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar cited risks that China could weaponize the app, including by manipulating its algorithm to prioritize certain content or by ordering parent company ByteDance to turn over vast amounts of user data compiled by TikTok on U.S. users.
"We know that the PRC has a voracious appetite to get its hands on as much information about Americans as possible, and that creates a potent weapon here," Prelogar said. "Because the PRC could command ByteDance [to] comply with any request it gives to obtain that data."
"TikTok's immense data set would give the PRC a powerful tool for harassment, recruitment and espionage," she added.
Earlier in oral arguments when TikTok was presenting its case, justices on the bench as a whole appeared skeptical of the company's core argument, which is that the law is a restriction of speech.
"Exactly what is TikTok's speech here?" Justice Clarence Thomas asked in the first moments of oral arguments in an early sign of the court's apparent doubt that the law is in fact a First Amendment violation.
At the conclusion of oral arguments, it remained unclear as to how the Supreme Court might proceed in the matter — though a ruling or order is expected before the Jan. 19 ban comes into force.
The Supreme Court and its 6-3 conservative majority have been historically deferential to Congress on matters of national security.
The divestiture law in question passed Congress last year with strong bipartisan support — as well as the guidance of top Justice Department officials, who worked directly with House lawmakers to write the bill and help it withstand possible legal challenges.
But the argument also comes at a time when President-elect Trump has signaled possible support for TikTok. His attorneys filed an amicus brief last month, urging the Supreme Court to delay the ban until he is sworn in as president.
If the goal of China and ByteDance, through TikTok, is "trying to get Americans to argue with each other," said Chief Justice John Roberts, "I’d say they are winning."
Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, on Friday sought to frame the case primarily as a restriction on free speech protections under the First Amendment, which the company argues applies to TikTok’s U.S.-based incorporation.
First Amendment protections must be considered under strict scrutiny, which requires the government to sustain a higher burden of proof in justifying a law's constitutionality. More specifically, the law must be crafted to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest — a test TikTok says the law fails to meet.
It's a difficult legal test to satisfy in court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit used it last month in considering the divestiture law, and still voted to uphold it — meaning that justices could theoretically consider the case under strict scrutiny and still opt to uphold the law — and the looming Jan. 19 ban.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Friday noted that the case before them appears to be the first one to be heard by the court centered directly on the ownership of a platform or app, rather than speech.
The liberal justice also questioned whether the court might consider the divestiture requirement under the law as a data control case, not properly a free-speech issue, as TikTok's legal team has sought to frame it.
Weighing the case as a data control case would trigger a lower level of scrutiny — a point that Francisco also acknowledged.
Francisco told justices in oral arguments on Friday that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.
Francisco told Chief Justice John Roberts that he believes the court should grant TikTok First Amendment protections because it is operating as a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary.
The TikTok attorney was also grilled over the Chinese government’s control over the app, and ByteDance’s control over the algorithm that shows certain content to users.
Asked by Justice Neil Gorsuch whether some parts of the recommendation engine are under Chinese control, Francisco said no.
"What it means is that there are lots of parts of the source code that are embodied in intellectual property, that are owned by the Chinese government" and which a sale or divestiture would restrict, he said. "It doesn't alter the fact that this is being operated in the United States by TikTok incorporated."
Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19.
Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections.
The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content.
Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congressdid not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment.
The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app.
Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19.
In oral arguments before the Supreme Court Friday, lawyers for the Biden administration reiterated their argument that TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses a "grave" national security risk for American users.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar cited risks that China could weaponize the app, including by manipulating its algorithm to prioritize certain content or by ordering parent company ByteDance to turn over vast amounts of user data compiled by TikTok on U.S. users.
"We know that the PRC has a voracious appetite to get its hands on as much information about Americans as possible, and that creates a potent weapon here," Prelogar said. "Because the PRC could command ByteDance [to] comply with any request it gives to obtain that data."
"TikTok's immense data set would give the PRC a powerful tool for harassment, recruitment and espionage," she added.
[Oral arguments began shortly after 10 a.m. Stay here for live updates as the proceedings unfold.]
Earlier in oral arguments when TikTok was presenting its case, justices on the bench as a whole appeared skeptical of the company's core argument, which is that the law is a restriction of speech.
"Exactly what is TikTok's speech here?" Justice Clarence Thomas asked in the first moments of oral arguments, in an early sign of the court's apparent doubt that the law is in fact a First Amendment violation.
Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, sought to frame the case Friday primarily as a restriction on free speech protections under the First Amendment, which the company argues applies to TikTok’s U.S.-based incorporation.
First Amendment protections must be considered under strict scrutiny, which requires the government to meet a higher burden of proof in passing a law. More specifically, the law must be crafted to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest— a test TikTok says the law fails to meet.
It's a difficult legal test to satisfy in court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit used it last month in considering the divestiture law, and still voted to uphold it— meaning that justices could theoretically consider the case under strict scrutiny and still opt to uphold the law— and the looming Jan. 19 ban.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted Friday that the case before them appears to be the first one to be heard by the court centered directly on the ownership of a platform or app, rather than speech.
The liberal justice also questioned whether the court might consider the divestiture requirement under the law as a data control case, not properly a free-speech issue, as TikTok's legal team has sought to frame it.
Weighing the case as a data control case would trigger a lower level of scrutiny— a point that Francisco also acknowledged.
Francisco told justices in oral arguments Friday that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.
Francisco told Chief Justice John Roberts that he believes the court should grant TikTok First Amendment protections because it is operating as a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary.
The TikTok attorney was also grilled over the Chinese government’s control over the app, and ByteDance’s control over the algorithm that shows certain content to users.
Asked by Justice Neil Gorsuch whether some parts of the recommendation engine are under Chinese control, Francisco said no. "What it means is that there are lots of parts of the source code that are embodied in intellectual property, that are owned by the Chinese government" and which a sale or divestiture would restrict, he said. "It doesn't alter the fact that this is, being operated in the United States by TikTok incorporated."
Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19. Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether or not full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections.
The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content.
Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congressdid not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment.
The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app.
Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19.
The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Friday morning over whether the social media platform TikTok should be required to divest from its Chinese-owned parent company or be banned in the U.S., a highly watched case that pits concerns over national security against free speech protections.
Justices on the bench as a whole appeared skeptical of TikTok's core argument, which is that the law is a restriction of speech.
"Exactly what is TikTok's speech here?" Justice Clarence Thomas asked in the first moments of oral arguments, in an early sign of the court's apparent doubt that the law is in fact a First Amendment violation.
[Oral arguments began shortly after 10 a.m. Stay here for live updates as the proceedings unfold.]
Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, sought to frame the case Friday primarily as a restriction on free speech protections under the First Amendment, which the company argues applies to TikTok’s U.S.-based incorporation.
First Amendment protections must be considered under strict scrutiny, which requires the government to meet a higher burden of proof in passing a law. More specifically, the law must be crafted to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest— a test TikTok says the law fails to meet.
It's a difficult legal test to satisfy in court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit used it last month in considering the divestiture law, and still voted to uphold it— meaning that justices could theoretically consider the case under strict scrutiny and still opt to uphold the law— and the looming Jan. 19 ban.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted Friday that the case before them appears to be the first one to be heard by the court centered directly on the ownership of a platform or app, rather than speech.
The liberal justice also questioned whether the court might consider the divestiture requirement under the law as a data control case, not properly a free-speech issue, as TikTok's legal team has sought to frame it.
Weighing the case as a data control case would trigger a lower level of scrutiny— a point that Francisco also acknowledged.
Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, told justices in oral arguments Friday that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.
Francisco told Chief Justice John Roberts that he believes the court should grant TikTok First Amendment protections because it is operating as a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary.
The TikTok attorney was also grilled over the Chinese government’s control over the app, and ByteDance’s control over the algorithm that shows certain content to users.
Asked by Justice Neil Gorsuch whether some parts of the recommendation engine are under Chinese control, Francisco said no. "What it means is that there are lots of parts of the source code that are embodied in intellectual property, that are owned by the Chinese government" and which a sale or divestiture would restrict, he said. "It doesn't alter the fact that this is, being operated in the United States by TikTok incorporated."
Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19. Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether or not full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections.
The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content.
Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congressdid not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment.
The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app.
Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19.
The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Friday morning over whether the social media platform TikTok should be required to divest from its Chinese-owned parent company or be banned in the U.S., in a highly watched case that pits concerns over national security against free speech protections. Justices both conservative and liberal appear skeptical of the social media app's arguments.
Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19. Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.
Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, told justices in oral arguments Friday that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.
Francisco told Chief Justice John Roberts that he believes the court should grant TikTok First Amendment protections because it is operating as a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary.
The TikTok attorney was also grilled over the Chinese government’s control over the app, and ByteDance’s control over the algorithm that shows certain content to users.
Asked by Justice Neil Gorsuch whether some parts of the recommendation engine are under Chinese control, Francisco said no. "What it means is that there are lots of parts of the source code that are embodied in intellectual property, that are owned by the Chinese government" and which a sale or divestiture would restrict, he said. "It doesn't alter the fact that this is, being operated in the United States by TikTok incorporated."
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether or not full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections.
The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content.
Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congressdid not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment.
The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app.
Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19.
Oral arguments began shortly after 10 a.m. Stay here for live updates as the oral arguments unfold.
The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Friday morning over whether the social media platform TikTok should be required to divest from its Chinese-owned parent company or be banned in the U.S., in a highly watched case that pits concerns over national security against free speech protections.
Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19. Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.
Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, told justices in oral arguments Friday that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether or not full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections.
The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content.
Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congressdid not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment.
The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app.
Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19.
Oral arguments began shortly after 10 a.m. Stay here for live updates as the oral arguments unfold.
President-elect Trump is expected to be sentenced Friday after being found guilty on charges of falsifying business records stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s years-long investigation.
The president-elect attended his sentencing virtually, after fighting to block the process all the way up to the United States Supreme Court this week. Trump sat beside his defense attorney Todd Blanche.
Trump called the case and his sentencing a "tremendous setback for the American court system."
"This is a great embarrassment to the state of New York," Trump said, adding that the people saw the trial firsthand, and voted "decisively" to elect him as president.
Judge Juan Merchan set Jan. 10—just ten days before he is set to be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States.
Merchan, though, said he will not sentence the president-elect to prison.
Merchan wrote in his decision that he is not likely to "impose any sentence of incarceration," but rather a sentence of an "unconditional discharge," which means there would be no punishment imposed.
Trump filed an appeal to block sentencing from moving forward with the New York State Court of Appeals. That court rejected his request.
Trump also filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that it "immediately order a stay of pending criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York, pending the final resolution of President Trump’s interlocutory appeal raising questions of Presidential immunity, including in this Court if necessary."
"The Court should also enter, if necessary, a temporary administrative stay while it considers this stay application," Trump’s filing requested.
Trump's attorneys also argued that New York prosecutors erroneously admitted extensive evidence relating to official presidential acts during trial, ignoring the high court's ruling on presidential immunity.
The Supreme Court denied Trump’s emergency petition to block his sentencing from taking place on Friday, Jan. 10.
The Supreme Court, earlier this year, ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution related to official presidential acts.
But New York prosecutors argued that the high court "lacks jurisdiction" over the case.
They also argued that the evidence they presented in the trial last year concerned "unofficial conduct that is not subject to any immunity."
Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. He pleaded not guilty to those charges. After a six-week-long, unprecedented trial for a former president and presidential candidate, a New York jury found the now-president-elect guilty on all counts.
Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of "lawfare" promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November.
The Supreme Court on Friday will hear oral arguments about a U.S. law requiring TikTok to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be banned from operating in the U.S. It's a heavily followed case that pits national security concerns against free speech protections for millions of Americans.
The court agreed in December to hold an expedited hearing on the case, giving it just nine days to decide whether to uphold TikTok's request to halt or delay the ban passed by Congress before it takes effect Jan. 19.
It is unlikely the court will take that long, however, and justices are expected to issue a ruling or order in a matter of days.
The case comes as TikTok continues to be one of the most popular social media apps in the U.S. with an estimated 170 million users nationwide.
President-elect Trump has also signaled support for the app, putting the case further into the national spotlight in the final weeks before his inauguration.
Ahead of Friday's oral arguments, here's what to know about the arguments and how the Supreme Court might act.
TikTok arguments, alleged free speech violations
TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, are urging the court to either block or delay the enforcement of a law Congress passed with bipartisan backing in April.
The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act gave TikTok nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company or be removed from U.S. app stores and hosting services. Its owners have said repeatedly they will not do so. It also grants the president a 90-day window to delay the ban if TikTok says a divestiture is in progress.
TikTok, ByteDance and several users of the app swiftly sued to block the ban in May, arguing the legislation would suppress free speech for the millions of Americans who use the platform.
Lawyers for TikTok argued that the law violates First Amendment protections, describing it as an "unprecedented attempt to single out applicants and bar them from operating one of the most significant speech platforms in this nation" and noting that lawmakers failed to consider less restrictive alternatives compared to an outright ban.
"History and precedent teach that, even when national security is at stake, speech bans must be Congress’s last resort," attorneys said in a reply brief filed last month to the high court.
National security concerns
Congress has cited concerns that China, a country it considers a foreign adversary of the U.S., could use TikTok to download vast troves of user data and push certain Chinese government-backed content onto users, prompting it to order the divestiture last spring.
The Biden administration also echoed these concerns. In a Supreme Court brief, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar noted the law focuses solely on China’s control of the app, which the Biden administration argued could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans, rather than its content.
Beijing could "covertly manipulate the platform" to advance geopolitical interests in the U.S., Prelogar noted, or use the vast amount of user data it has amassed for either espionage or blackmail.
Lawyers for the administration will argue Friday that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech— much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content — and failed to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment.
The Biden administration also filed under seal classified evidence to the court that it argued "lends further support" to its conclusion that TikTok under ByteDance ownership should be banned.
That evidence has not been released to the public.
Political pressures
The Supreme Court's decision to fast-track the case comes as President-elect Trump has signaled apparent support for the app in recent months.
In December, Trump hosted TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago resort, telling reporters during a press conference his incoming administration will "take a look at TikTok" and the divestiture case.
"I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok," Trump told reporters.
Attorneys for the president-elect also filed a brief with the Supreme Court last month, asking justices to delay any decision in the case until after Trump's inauguration Jan. 20.
The brief did not signal how Trump might act.
Still, attorneys for TikTok have cited that relationship directly in their Supreme Court filings. Last month, they argued an interim injunction is appropriate "because it will give the incoming Administration time to determine its position, as the President-elect and his advisors have voiced support for saving TikTok.
"There is a strong public interest that this Court have the opportunity to exercise plenary review.
The case also comes amid a groundswell of support from some lawmakers in Congress.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.; Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass.; and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., filed a brief Thursday urging the Supreme Court to reverse the ban, arguing the lawmakers do not have sufficient evidence needed to outweigh free speech protections granted under the First Amendment.
In the brief, lawmakers referenced the nation's longtime reliance on national security claims as a means of justifying censorship, citing examples from the Sedition Acts of the 18th and 20th centuries and Cold War-era free speech restrictions. Banning TikTok due to "speculative concerns" about foreign interference, they argued, is "unconstitutional and contradicts fundamental American values."
They argued the U.S. could adopt less drastic measures that would effectively address any data security concerns posed by the app while also not infringing on First Amendment rights.
Others remained deeply opposed.
Sen. Mitch McConnell blasted TikTok's arguments as "unmeritless and unsound" in a filing of his own, noting that Congress explicitly set the Jan. 19 date for the divestiture clause to take force since it "very clearly removes any possible political uncertainty in the execution of the law by cabining it to an administration that was deeply supportive of the bill’s goals."
President-elect Donald Trump said he respects the Supreme Court’s decision to deny his request to stop his sentencing in New York v. Trump from moving forward, but said Thursday night he will appeal, while stressing that "lawfare" has been an "attack on the Republican Party."
Trump’s comments came just moments after the Supreme Court denied Trump’s emergency petition to block his sentencing from taking place on Friday, Jan. 10. The sentencing was scheduled by New York Judge Juan Merchan.
Merchan, last week, said he would not sentence the president-elect to prison, but rather issue a sentence of an "unconditional discharge," which means there would be no punishment imposed.
"I’m the first president and probably one of the first candidates in history that’s under attack with a gag order where I’m not allowed to speak about something," Trump said during a meeting at Mar-a-Lago Thursday night with Republican governors. "This is a long way from finished and I respect the court’s opinion."
Trump said he thought the court’s ruling was a "very good opinion for us," noting that the justices "invited the appeal."
"We’ll see how it all works out," he said. "I think it’s going to work out well."
But Trump reflected on the "lawfare" that he has been victim of, saying that it "was an attack on the Republican Party."
"This was an attack on the Republican candidate who just won an election by record numbers—the highest number of Republican votes by far ever gotten, and we won all the swing states, we won the popular vote by millions of people," he said. "They tried to stop that from happening—they tried to stop this election from happening or to bloody somebody up so badly they couldn’t win."
Trump said that "the people got it and we won by the largest number."
Trump filed an emergency petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday in an effort to prevent his Jan. 10 sentencing, scheduled by Judge Juan Merchan, from taking place.
"The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons. First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal," the order states.
"Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge' after a brief virtual hearing," the court ruled.
The order also noted that "Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application."
Trump needed five votes in order to have his request granted. The note on the order suggests Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Katanji Brown Jackson.
Trump's sentencing is now expected to move forward, with the president-elect expected to appear virtually for the proceeding, scheduled for 9:30 am Friday.
Merchan set Trump's sentencing in New York v. Trump for Jan. 10 after a jury found the now-president-elect guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree, stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's investigation. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges and has appealed the ruling but was rejected last week by Merchan.
Trump will be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States on Jan. 20.
Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of "lawfare" promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November.
The United States Supreme Court has denied President-elect Trump's petition to block his Friday sentencing in New York v. Trump.
Trump filed an emergency petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday in an effort to prevent his Jan. 10 sentencing, scheduled by Judge Juan Merchan, from taking place.
The high court on Thursday night said "the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of ‘unconditional discharge’ after a brief virtual hearing."
Now, sentencing in New York v. Trump can move forward, with the president-elect expected to appear virtually for the proceeding, scheduled for 9:30 am Friday.
Merchan set Trump's sentencing in New York v. Trump for Jan. 10 after a jury found the now-president-elect guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree, stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's investigation. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges and has appealed the ruling but was rejected last week by Merchan.
Trump's lawyers, in their petition to the high court, said it should "immediately order a stay of pending criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York, pending the final resolution of President Trump’s interlocutory appeal raising questions of Presidential immunity, including in this Court if necessary."
"The Court should also enter, if necessary, a temporary administrative stay while it considers this stay application," the filing states.
Trump's attorneys also argued that New York prosecutors erroneously admitted extensive evidence relating to official presidential acts during trial, ignoring the high court's ruling on presidential immunity.
The Supreme Court, earlier this year, ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution related to official presidential acts.
Trump's legal team is arguing Merchan should not be permitted to move any further and said their appeal of the ruling "will ultimately result in the dismissal of the District Attorney’s politically motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning, centered around the wrongful actions and false claims of a disgraced, disbarred serial-liar former attorney, violated President Trump’s due process rights, and had no merit."
Merchan set the sentencing date last week but said he will not sentence the president-elect to prison.
Merchan wrote in his decision that he is not likely to "impose any sentence of incarceration," but rather a sentence of an "unconditional discharge," which means there would be no punishment imposed.
Trump will be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States on Jan. 20.
Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of "lawfare" promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November.
MAGA Republicans are offering an outpouring of support for TikTok ahead of a ban looming over the social media platform that is set to take effect later this month.
"Trump won the election because he listened to first-time voters like myself and joined TikTok to get his message to us directly," RNC Youth Advisory Council Chair Brilyn Hollyhand told Fox News Digital of the impending ban. "He didn’t need paid influencers or cringey trends like his failed opponent. All he had to do was go where Gen Z was, TikTok, and lay out his plan."
Representatives of TikTok, which is owned by Chinese tech company ByteDance, are set to deliver arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to request the nation’s highest court to delay a ban on the app that is set to take effect a day ahead of the inauguration. President Biden signed legislation into law in April that gave TikTok's parent company until Jan. 19 to sell it or face a U.S. ban.
If the Supreme Court does not halt the ban, U.S. TikTok users will no longer be able to download the app, and internet providers will be prohibited from allowing access to the site.
The looming ban originated out of concern that American users’ data is gathered by the Chinese government, but MAGA Republicans and content creators who spoke with Fox Digital balked at the reasoning as insincere.
"I have done, if not, the deepest possible dive on all of the concerns associated with the platform, especially for my daily show when I share my opinions and commentary on what's going on in culture and politics," TikTok creator and TPUSA commentator Isabel Brown, who has more than 500,000 followers on TikTok, told Fox Digital in a phone interview. "And we've confronted this potential ban of the platform for at least nine months to a year now … the complaints that I'm hearing, from particularly politicians, largely center around national security."
"But I have a very hard time believing that the true argument to censor TikTok is based in a national security concern when we still have documented evidence of virtually every single American social media company. Meta, Twitter, YouTube, etc, selling your data under the table to your own government and/or the Chinese Communist Party and even the Russian government as well."
"Heck, we even have records of Airbnb selling American data to the Chinese Communist Party. So there doesn't seem to be a lot of willingness to truly protect the cyber and personal information security of American citizens from the government en masse, it seems to only be focused on TikTok as a platform itself," Brown continued.
President-elect Donald Trump's supporters praising TikTok comes after the former and upcoming president made big inroads with Gen Z, especially young male voters, in the last cycle. A Fox News Voter Survey published after the election found that men aged 18-44 supported Trump at 53% compared to Vice President Kamala Harris at 45%.
"We're talking about an app that nearly 200 million Americans, 75% of whom are Gen Z, use every single day as our primary source of news, and according to some studies, even as our primary web browser search tool, so more than Google … and I have found that the opportunity for virality – to have a conversation with as many people as possible – on Tiktok is unparalleled on any other social media platform," Brown said.
A Republican strategist told Fox News Digital that TikTok is by all intents and purposes a "conservative platform."
"By all means, TikTok is a conservative platform now - if you take a look at how Trump dominated his competition, there’s no argument against the value this platform has, and I don’t think there’s a world where Trump doesn’t fulfill his promise to save it," the strategist said.
The GOP insider added that "the fact that [Sen. Mitch] McConnell and [former Vice President Mike] Pence want to ban this thing means it needs to be saved."
Ahead of the new year, Sen. Mitch McConnell filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, urging justices to reject ByteDance’s request to delay the ban.
"The topsy-turvy idea that TikTok has an expressive right to facilitate the CCP censorship regime is absurd," McConnell’s counsel Michael A. Fragoso wrote in the friend of the court brief. "Would Congress have needed to allow Nikita Khrushchev to buy CBS and replace The Bing Crosby Show with Alexander Nevsky?"
While former Vice President Mike Pence’s nonprofit, Advancing American Freedom, filed a similar amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court last month.
"The CCP does not respect free speech, either in China or in America. The First Amendment is not, and should not be read as, a means of granting the Chinese government the power to do what the American government could not: manipulate what Americans can say and hear," the group wrote.
Advancing American Freedom President Tim Chapman told Fox News Digital that Trump's first administration "had this right the first time" when Trump initially worked to ban TikTok before the former and upcoming president reversed his opinion on the app.
"The Trump administration had this right the first time when they planned to ban TikTok through executive authority for the very same concerns that exist today. Political strategists salivating over clicks and followers does not mean that the national security implications have changed," Chapman said.
Emily Wilson, political commentator and host of podcast "Emily Saves America," told Fox News Digital that she can see both sides of the argument surrounding the looming TikTok ban but that instituting a ban would be "hypocritical against free speech."
"The TikTok ban is controversial, I see two sides to it. I see it as an app that’s very left leaning and consumes way too much of people’s time but it is sometimes the only place I get info about stories that should be breaking world wide. At the same time it can be dangerous. It can radicalize young people. One day you wake up on TikTok and young Americans are saying they’re supportive of Osama bin Laden," Wilson told Fox Digital.
"It seems to be an app leaning towards being anti-American and brainwashing young kids. At the end of the day, if I say to ban it it’s hypocritical against free speech. I just don’t want it harming young people," she added.
Trump himself has made a 180-degree turn on TikTok. Under his first administration, in 2020, Trump tried to ban the app from the U.S. market over national security concerns. His executive order, however, was eventually blocked in federal court.
Fast-forward to 2024 amid the campaign cycle, and Trump joined the app in June during the campaign cycle and has since racked up nearly 15 million followers and 107 million likes as supporters flocked to his content on the platform. Trump also filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court last month, which supported neither party in the case, arguing the fate of the platform should be left up to his administration.
"Today, President Donald J. Trump has filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Court to extend the deadline that would cause TikTok’s imminent shutdown, and allow President Trump the opportunity to resolve the issue in a way that saves TikTok and preserves American national security once he resumes office as President of the United States on January 20, 2025," Trump spokesman and incoming White House Communications Director Steven Cheung told Fox News Digital last month.
"President Donald J. Trump (‘President Trump’) is the 45th and soon to be the 47th President of the United States of America," the brief states. "On January 20, 2025, President Trump will assume responsibility for the United States’ national security, foreign policy, and other vital executive functions."
Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman, Paul Steinhauser and Morgan Phillips contributed to this report.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito confirmed to Fox News Wednesday that he spoke with President-elect Donald Trump the day before Trump’s high court appearance but said they did not discuss an emergency application the former president's legal team planned to file to delay the sentencing.
Alito told Fox News' Shannon Bream he was asked if he would accept a call from Trump regarding a position that his former clerk, William Levi, is being considered for, and praised Levi’s "outstanding resume."
"William Levi, one of my former law clerks, asked me to take a call from President-elect Trump regarding his qualifications to serve in a government position. I agreed to discuss this matter with President-elect Trump, and he called me yesterday afternoon," said Alito.
Alito said he did not speak with Trump about the emergency application, nor was he "even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed."
"We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the President-elect," Alito said.
Alito told Fox News that he is often asked to give recommendations to potential employers for former clerks and that it was common practice.
Levi once served in the Justice Department during the President-elect's first term and also clerked for Alito from 2011 to 2012.
Alito, speaking to Trump the day before Trump’s appearance in high court regarding his New York hush-money case, is causing some to call him out, saying the conversation was an "unmistakable breach of protocol."
"No person, no matter who they are, should engage in out-of-court communication with a judge or justice who’s considering that person’s case," Gabe Roth, executive director of the nonpartisan group Fix the Court, said in a statement.
Alito said he was unaware there was an emergency request being readied by the Trump legal team with respect to the New York State case, and there was no discussion of it.
He confirmed to Fox News that the call was solely about Levi, and that there was no discussion of any matter involving a Trump legal issue – past, present or future.
He also said there was no discussion of any issue before the Court or potentially coming before the Court.
ABC News was the first to report the Trump-Alito call.
Separate ethics complaints filed by members of Congress and an advocacy group against Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson will not be referred to the Justice Department, federal court officials announced.
The U.S. Judicial Conference said Thomas has agreed to follow updated guidelines on listing free private travel and gifts from friends, following previous reporting on undisclosed hospitality.
For her part, Jackson has amended her financial disclosures following complaints about her husband’s consulting income as a physician.
Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), along with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), had asked for an investigation by the judiciary itself into undisclosed hospitality provided to Thomas by billionaire friend Harland Crow. ProPublica reported on several instances of private travel and lodging over the years.
Judge Robert Conrad, who heads the judicial conference policymaking body, said in letters to the lawmakers that Thomas had filed amended financial disclosures "that address several issues identified in your letter."
Additionally, Conrad said that it was not clear whether the judiciary itself could make criminal referrals against a sitting Supreme Court member.
"Because the Judicial Conference does not superintend the Supreme Court and because any effort to grant the Conference such authority would raise serious constitutional questions, one would expect Congress at a minimum to state any such directive clearly. But no such express directive appears in this provision," Conrad said.
Conrad noted that Whitehouse and Wyden had separately asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to name a special counsel to investigate then-former President Donald Trump. Garland has not acted yet on that request.
Whitehouse, in a statement, criticized the Judicial Conference’s decision.
"By all appearances, the judicial branch is shirking its statutory duty to hold a Supreme Court justice accountable for ethics violations," said Whitehouse.
The complaint filed against Jackson came from Citizens for Renewing America, led by Russ Vought, who was nominated by President-elect Trump to lead the Office of Management and Budget.
Questions over ethics, including unreported private travel by some justices, have led the court to adopt its first code of ethics last year.
However, compliance is left to each of the nine justices, leading to concerns the court is not taking its own ethics enforcement standards seriously.
A two-year investigation by Senate Democrats released last week found additional luxury travel by Justice Thomas in 2021 was not noted on his annual financial disclosure form.
Fix the Court, a group which advocates for greater judicial transparency, urged Congress to act.
"The Conference’s letters further underscore the need for Congress to create a new and transparent mechanism to investigate the justices for ethics violations since the Conference is unwilling to act upon the one method we had presumed existed to do that," said Executive Director Gabe Roth.
Former President Jimmy Carter served just a single term in the White House, but it proved to be an impactful one for the federal courts, which saw the appointment of more than 260 federal judges across the country, including some who would go on to wield considerable influence in the nation's top courts.
His appointments were barrier-breaking and diverse, helping reshape the federal bench and paving the way for women and minorities to serve on the Supreme Court.
Here are just some of the ways Carter helped reshape the federal judiciary during his four years in office.
Diversifying the bench
Carter appointed a total of 262 federal judges during his four years in the White House, more than any single-term president in U.S. history. And despite never getting to appoint a Supreme Court nominee, Carter's judicial appointments were history-making in their own right. That's because he appointed a record number of minority and female jurists during his presidency, announcing 57 minority judges and 41 female jurists during his four years in office.
This was aided in part by Carter's creation of the Circuit Court Nominating Commissions during his first year as president, which he tasked with identifying potential judicial candidates as part of an overarching effort to make the U.S. courts look more like the populations they represented.
These judges helped diversify the federal judiciary. More broadly, they also helped shape the hundreds of court opinions handed down at the district and appellate court level.
Supreme Court impact
Speaking to NBC News’s Brian Williams in 2005, Carter revealed that he had planned to nominate a woman to serve on the Supreme Court if a vacancy had opened up during his presidency.
In fact, Carter even had a name in mind: Judge Shirley Hufstedler, who in 1968 was appointed by then-President Lyndon B. Johnson to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She was the first woman to serve as an appellate court judge.
"Had I had a vacancy," he told Williams, Hufstedler was "the foremost candidate in my mind."
Carter did go on to choose Hufstedler for another role: the nation’s first secretary of education.
"If I had had a Supreme Court appointment, she was the one in my mind that I had in store for the job," Carter said.
It would instead be Carter’s successor, Ronald Reagan, who would go on to nominate the nation’s first female Supreme Court justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, in 1981.
Though Carter did not directly appoint any judges to the Supreme Court as president, two of his appellate court nominees would go on to serve on the nation's highest court: Stephen Breyer, who he tapped for the U.S. Appeals Court, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who Carter appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Both were tapped by former President Bill Clinton to serve on the Supreme Court in the early 1990s and both were subsequently replaced by women jurists. Breyer retired in 2022, replaced by President Biden's sole nominee to the court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Ginsburg died in September 2020 and was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Ginsburg was praised for her trailblazing work on gender discrimination. In nominating her to the Supreme Court in 1993, Clinton lauded Ginsburg for being "to the women's movement what Thurgood Marshall was to the movement for the rights of African Americans."
In public speeches, Ginsburg often credited Carter for his work in reshaping the judiciary.
"Women weren’t on the bench in numbers, on the federal bench, until Jimmy Carter became president," Ginsburg said in a 2015 speech at the American Constitution Society.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a warning on Tuesday that the U.S. must maintain "judicial independence" just weeks away from President-elect Trump's inauguration.
Roberts explained his concerns in his annual report on the federal judiciary.
"It is not in the nature of judicial work to make everyone happy. Most cases have a winner and a loser. Every Administration suffers defeats in the court system — sometimes in cases with major ramifications for executive or legislative power or other consequential topics," Robert wrote in the 15-page report. "Nevertheless, for the past several decades, the decisions of the courts, popular or not, have been followed, and the Nation has avoided the standoffs that plagued the 1950s and 1960s."
"Within the past few years, however, elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings," Roberts said, without naming Trump, President Biden or any specific lawmaker. "These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected. Judicial independence is worth preserving. As my late colleague Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, an independent judiciary is ‘essential to the rule of law in any land,’ yet it ‘is vulnerable to assault; it can be shattered if the society law exists to serve does not take care to assure its preservation.’"
"I urge all Americans to appreciate this inheritance from our founding generation and cherish its endurance," Roberts said.
Roberts also quoted Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who remarked that the three branches of government "must work in successful cooperation" to "make possible the effective functioning of the department of government which is designed to safeguard with judicial impartiality and independence the interests of liberty."
"Our political system and economic strength depend on the rule of law," Roberts wrote.
A landmark Supreme Court immunity decision penned by Roberts, along with another high court decision halting efforts to disqualify Trump from the ballot, were championed as major victories on the Republican nominee's road to winning the election. The immunity decision was criticized by Democrats like Biden, who later called for term limits and an enforceable ethics code following criticism over undisclosed trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors to some justices.
A handful of Democrats and one Republican lawmaker urged President Biden to ignore a decision by a Trump-appointed judge to revoke FDA approval for the abortion drug mifepristone last year. Biden declined to take executive action to bypass the ruling, and the Supreme Court later granted the White House a stay permitting the sale of the medication to continue.
The high court's conservative majority also ruled last year that Biden's massive student loan debt forgiveness efforts constitute an illegal use of executive power.
Roberts and Trump clashed in 2018 when the chief justice rebuked the president for denouncing a judge who rejected his migrant asylum policy as an "Obama judge."
In 2020, Roberts criticized comments made by Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York while the Supreme Court was considering a high-profile abortion case.
Roberts introduced his letter Tuesday by recounting a story about King George III stripping colonial judges of lifetime appointments, an order that was "not well received." Trump is now readying for a second term as president with an ambitious conservative agenda, elements of which are likely to be legally challenged and end up before the court whose conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term.
In the annual report, the chief justice wrote generally that even if court decisions are unpopular or mark a defeat for a presidential administration, other branches of government must be willing to enforce them to ensure the rule of law. Roberts pointed to the Brown v. Board of Education decision that desegrated schools in 1954 as one that needed federal enforcement in the face of resistance from southern governors.
He also said "attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed."
While public officials and others have the right to criticize rulings, they should also be aware that their statements can "prompt dangerous reactions by others," Roberts wrote.
Threats targeting federal judges have more than tripled over the last decade, according to U.S. Marshals Service statistics. State court judges in Wisconsin and Maryland were killed at their homes in 2022 and 2023, Roberts wrote.
"Violence, intimidation, and defiance directed at judges because of their work undermine our Republic, and are wholly unacceptable," he wrote.
Roberts also pointed to disinformation about court rulings as a threat to judges’ independence, saying that social media can magnify distortions and even be exploited by "hostile foreign state actors" to exacerbate divisions.
"Disappointed litigants rage at judicial decisions on the Internet, urging readers to send a message to the judge," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his year-end report on Tuesday.
Jacquelyn Martin/POOL/AFP via Getty Images
Chief Justice John Roberts flagged threats to the judicial system in his year-end review.
Disgruntled lawmakers and litigants pose a threat to judicial independence, Roberts wrote.
Roberts didn't name anyone specifically when he admonished public officials for intimidating judges.
False accusations and charged rhetoric against judges pose a threat to judicial independence, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his year-end review for 2024.
The report, published on Tuesday, delved into the dangers posed by disgruntled politicians and litigants against judges and the wider judicial system.
Roberts said in his report that some judicial decisions are "egregiously wrong" and do merit pushback, but that "not all actors engage in 'informed criticism.'"
"I feel compelled to address four areas of illegitimate activity that, in my view, do threaten the independence of judges on which the rule of law depends: (1) violence, (2) intimidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments," Roberts wrote.
The report came not long before President-elect Donald Trump is due to be inaugurated on January 20.
Roberts did not mention Trump in the report, though it did cite instances of litigants airing their criticisms of judges.
"Today, in the computer era, intimidation can take different forms," Roberts wrote. "Disappointed litigants rage at judicial decisions on the Internet, urging readers to send a message to the judge."
"They falsely claim that the judge had it in for them because of the judge's race, gender, or ethnicity—or the political party of the President who appointed the judge," the chief justice added.
Trump has notably clashed with judges presiding over cases against him.
The former president was held in contempt of court after criticizing his presiding judge, New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan during an interview with "Real America's Voice" in April.
"But this judge, uh, said that I can't get away from the trial. You know he's rushing the trial like crazy. Nobody's ever seen a thing go like this. The jury was picked so fast — 95% Democrats," Trump said in a phone interview with the network.
Trump also clashed repeatedly with Lewis Kaplan, the judge in a defamation suit brought against him by E. Jean Carroll.
In his report, Roberts admonished public officials for attempting to intimidate judges, though he stopped short of naming them.
"Public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others," Roberts wrote.
The chief justice also admonished lawmakers for trying to defy the Supreme Court's decisions.
"Elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings," the chief justice wrote.
In April 2023, congressional Democrats urged the White House to ignore a federal judge's decision to block the sale of the abortion pill mifepristone. The Biden administration rejected the suggestion. The Supreme Court later upheld access to the drug in a ruling issued in June.
The Supreme Court did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.
Former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai asked the Supreme Court to uphold the federal TikTok ban.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Ajit Pai urged the Supreme Court to uphold a federal law that could ban TikTok.
The TikTok law requires its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest to avoid a US ban.
Pai, the FCC chair during Trump's first term, led efforts against other Chinese tech firms.
Former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is siding with Congress — and against his former boss, president-elect Donald Trump — in support of a federal law that could ban TikTok.
In a brief filed with the Supreme Court on Friday, Pai joined Thomas Feddo, an official in the Department of Treasury during Trump's first term, to call on the court to uphold the law, telling the justices that it has precedent.
Trump also filed a brief with the Supreme Court on Friday, asking the court to put the law on hold. It's set to go into effect on January 19, one day before Trump assumes office for the second time.
Congress passed the bipartisan law in April, citing national security concerns over the Chinese ownership of the popular social media company. It established a nine-month deadline for TikTok's Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app to a non-Chinese company or face a ban in the United States.
Pai was one of numerous people and organizations, from members of Congress to free speech groups, who filed briefs to the Supreme Court in support or opposition to the law.
Pai headed the FCC from 2012 to 2016 under President Barack Obama and then from 2017 to 2021 under President Donald Trump.
In his filing, Pai's attorneys argued that the law has precedent.
They said he "spearheaded rulemaking" that prevented communications companies receiving federal funding from purchasing or using equipment from Chinese-owned tech companies like Huawei and ZTE over data privacy and security concerns.
The briefing says Pai also "put in place" the process for designating companies that could be a risk to national security. The document says these measures are "extremely similar" to the TikTok law passed by Congress.
"Congress and the Executive Branch have routinely identified in legislation or regulation specific companies under China's control that pose particular national security risk," the document says.
"In these other instances, just as with the Divestiture Act, Congress put in place a process for future designations in addition to naming particular threats."
Pai was a controversial figure during his leadership of the FCC. Under his tenure, the FCC ended net neutrality rules, which had governed the internet and been encoded in 2015. Net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers should treat all data the same, and not give preference to certain websites or slow down others.
In April 2024, the FCC announced an order that restored net neutrality as an industry standard.
Searchlight Capital — the private equity firm where Pai has been a partner since 2021, when he left his post at the FCC — did not immediately return a request for comment from Business Insider. An attorney for Pai declined to comment.
President-elect Trump says he should be the one to make the decision on whether TikTok can continue operating in the United States due to the unique national security and First Amendment issues raised by this case, he said in an amicus brief Friday.
Trump’s argument comes in an amicus brief "supporting neither party," filed Friday, weeks before the Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments on Jan. 10, 2025 on the law that requires a divestment of TikTok from foreign adversary control.
TikTok is owned by ByteDance, a company based in Beijing and connected to the Chinese Communist Party.
"Today, President Donald J. Trump has filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Court to extend the deadline that would cause TikTok’s imminent shutdown, and allow President Trump the opportunity to resolve the issue in a way that saves TikTok and preserves American national security once he resumes office as President of the United States on January 20, 2025," Trump spokesman and incoming White House Communications Director Steven Cheung told Fox News Digital.
"President Donald J. Trump ("President Trump") is the 45th and soon to be the 47th President of the United States of America," the brief states. "On January 20, 2025, President Trump will assume responsibility for the United States’ national security, foreign policy, and other vital executive functions."
Trump argues that "this case presents an unprecedented, novel, and difficult tension between free-speech rights on one side, and foreign policy and national-security concerns on the other." "As the incoming Chief Executive, President Trump has a particularly powerful interest in and responsibility for those national-security and foreign-policy questions, and he is the right constitutional actor to resolve the dispute through political means.
President Trump also has a unique interest in the First Amendment issues raised in this case," the brief states. "Through his historic victory on November 5, 2024, President Trump received a powerful electoral mandate from American voters to protect the free-speech rights of all Americans—including the 170 million Americans who use TikTok."
"President Trump is uniquely situated to vindicate these interests, because ‘the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation,’" the brief continues.
Trump argues that due to his "overarching responsibility for the United States’ national security and foreign policy— President Trump opposes banning TikTok in the United States at this juncture, and seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office."
"On September 4, 2024, President Trump posted on Truth Social, ‘FOR ALL THOSE THAT WANT TO SAVE TIK TOK IN AMERICA, VOTE TRUMP!’" the brief states.
Trump argues that he "alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government—concerns which President Trump himself has acknowledged."
"Indeed, President Trump’s first Term was highlighted by a series of policy triumphs achieved through historic deals, and he has a great prospect of success in this latest national security and foreign policy endeavor," the brief states.
Trump notes that the 270-day deadline imposed by the new TikTok law "expires on January 19, 2025—one day before President Trump will assume office as the 47th President of the United States."
That legislation, which was signed into law in the spring, requires a sale of TikTok from ByteDance by Jan. 19. If ByteDance does not divest by the deadline, Google and Apple are no longer able to feature TikTok in their app stores in the U.S.
"This unfortunate timing interferes with President Trump’s ability to manage the United States’ foreign policy and to pursue a resolution to both protect national security and save a social-media platform that provides a popular vehicle for 170 million Americans to exercise their core First Amendment rights," the brief states. "The Act imposes the timing constraint, moreover, without specifying any compelling government interest in that particular deadline."
Trump points to the law, which "contemplates a 90-day extension to the deadline under certain specified circumstances."
Supreme Court Justices said they will hold a special session on Jan. 10 to hear oral arguments in the case -- an expedited timeline that will allow them to consider the case just nine days before the Jan. 19 ban is slated to take effect. The law allows the president to extend the deadline by up to 90 days if ByteDance is in the process of divesting.
"President Trump, therefore, has a compelling interest as the incoming embodiment of the Executive Branch in seeing the statutory deadline stayed to allow his incoming Administration the opportunity to seek a negotiated resolution of these questions," the brief states. "If successful, such a resolution would obviate the need for this Court to decide the historically challenging First Amendment question presented here on the current, highly expedited basis."
TikTok and ByteDance filed an emergency application to the high court earlier this month asking justices to temporarily block the law from being enforced while it appealed a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Lawyers for TikTok have argued that the law passed earlier this year is a First Amendment violation, noting in their Supreme Court request that "Congress's unprecedented attempt to single out applicants and bar them from operating one of the most significant speech platforms in this nation" and "presents grave constitutional problems that this court likely will not allow to stand."
TikTok, last year, created its "Project Texas" initiative, which is dedicated to addressing concerns about U.S. national security.
TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew says "Project Texas" creates a stand-alone version of the TikTok platform for the U.S. isolated on servers in Oracle’s U.S. cloud environment. It was developed by CFIUS and cost the company approximately $1.5 billion to implement.
Chew has argued that TikTok is not beholden to any one country, though executives in the past have admitted that Chinese officials had access to Americans' data even when U.S.-based TikTok officials did not. TikTok claims that the new initiative keeps U.S. user data safe, and told Fox News Digital that data is managed "by Americans, in America."
Trump has signaled support for TikTok. Earlier this month, he met with Chew at Mar-a-Lago, telling reporters during a press conference ahead of the meeting that his incoming administration will "take a look at TikTok" and the looming U.S. ban.
"I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok," Trump told reporters.
The NIL market is expected to be worth around $1.7 Billion in the 2024-2025 season according to Opendorse. $1.1 billion of that is going to college football. Men’s basketball players earned around $389 million. Women’s basketball players received around $75 million. Olympic athletes have generated around $134 million dollars.
The money making began back in July 2021, when the Supreme Court ruled the NCAA could not prevent student athletes from profiting by their name, image and likeness. Since the decision, the legal fights have continued between the NCAA and state legislatures.
"It's been really interesting to watch the competitive balance between the states," Rob Sine said, CEO of Blueprint Sports. "Tennessee is more aggressive, Florida wants to get more aggressive, and then Texas wants to get more aggressive. More state laws are passed and repealed and then passed again."
Blueprint Sports oversees several high-profile collectives across the country. Boosters, individual donors and businesses often choose to fund collectives which then pay athletes for appearances or endorsements. The groups are estimated to control around 80% of the NIL Market.
"The schools are already spread so thin. So, for a professional services unit, they're happy to know that, hey, we'll put staff on campus, that will represent them and the student athletes," Sine said. "The collective as a marketing agency, we’ll handle all the operations, we’ll provide that third party arm for athletic departments where we can do negotiations with agents, we can do negotiations with athletes we can handle if an athlete enters the transfer portal, terminating the contract, or things like that."
Blueprint Sports oversees collectives from across the country, including NC State’s One Pack NIL, Colorado’s 5430 Alliance, Pennsylvania’s Happy Valley United and Arkansas’ Arkansas Edge.
"Pennsylvania has different rules than Arkansas does or than North Carolina does," Sine said. "The NCAA guidelines are there to be exactly what is, set guidelines. Then you have to follow the state law in certain areas."
The first guidance from the NCAA in 2021 aligned with the Supreme Court decision. Athletes could be paid if state law allowed. The rules did attempt to prevent schools from using NIL money to recruit athletes.
"It was a lot easier," Sen. Tommy Tuberville R-Ala. said referencing how NIL laws have changed the recruiting process in recent years. "There's really no recruiting now. It's buying. It's totally different."
Before Tuberville was elected to the senate, he coached at Ole Miss, Auburn, Texas Tech and Cincinnati. He has since co-sponsored NIL legislation alongside Sen. Joe Manchin I-W.V. He plans to reintroduce or modify the Protecting Athletes, Schools and Sports Act (PASS Act) alongside a democrat in the next congress.
"In football and basketball, it's whoever's got the most money," Tuberville said.
California signed the first state NIL law in 2019. Several others began to follow suit. Eventually, legislatures began passing laws to circumvent NCAA guidance, to allow NIL money to be used for recruiting.
"Over the years, the money's gotten higher and higher and the student athletes are going, wait a minute, you know, why don't we get some of that money? Why don't we share in the revenue?" Tuberville said.
Tuberville says collectives have too much influence and that legislation like the PASS Act would help level the playing field. But collectives disagree.
"I don't think the federal government is the way to do it. I think it creates a whole lot more complications," Sine said. "I've watched those hearings before and there's not a lot of direction and bright ideas coming out of it. There's been a lot of drafts of bills. I think it'll be hard for them to get anything passed."
Not all university officials believe the federal government should stay out of the NIL debate.
"This is a free market economy. We live in the greatest country in the world. And I think it's great that our student athletes are now finally being able to be compensated for what they're worth But we need national standards in college sports. Every coach needs to know that when that ball gets tipped off, we're all playing by the same rules. And right now, we're not," Auburn Men’s Basketball Coach Bruce Pearl said.
Initial laws in Alabama and South Carolina reflected NCAA guidance that prevented using NIL money for recruitment. Other states began to pass laws that strayed from that guidance and allowed loopholes for third party donors to promise money for potential student athletes. That prompted the NCAA to shift its stance. In 2022, the Division 1 Board of Directors clarified that schools could request donors to provide funds for collectives, as long as those were not directed to a specific sport or athlete.
"Back in the day it was about graduation rates, or it was about, can you help me get to the NBA? Are we going to win championships? What's the culture of the program like? Those things were more important to parents," Pearl said. "Now it's become way more transactional. What is my market value? How much will I get if I go to that school? And of course, everybody's playing with a different budget right now. And that's what makes it somewhat unfair."
The updated NCAA guidance prompted Alabama and South Carolina to repeal initial NIL laws. Both states determined that other schools had more opportunities to recruit better players.
"It did give us a little bit more freedom," Pearl sad. "We'd like for conferences and the people that are guiding our programs to be able to be empowered. Right now, everything goes to the courts. They lose every lawsuit."
Texas passed its legislation in 2023, which strayed from NCAA guidance in allowing donations for specific sports. The law also permits perks and benefits for fans who donate to NIL collectives. A clause also made it illegal for the NCAA to punish a school for taking full advantage of NIL.
"A lot of people began to find a gray area. And so, donors or other organizations around the country were looking at this going, okay, well we're going to raise, instead of $100,000, we're going to raise $2 million or we're going to raise $20 million and we're going to really begin to build this and create a very competitive advantage because nobody's telling us we can't," Sine said.
New transfer portal rules have increased competition to find better players and pay out more money. A couple of months before the Supreme Court issued its NIL decision, the NCAA updated its transfer portal policy, allowing Division I athletes a on-time opportunity to transfer and compete immediately.
Originally, an athlete could transfer schools, but needed to sit out a year before playing, unless granted a waiver by the NCAA. In 2024, the association updated its guidance to allow for unlimited transfers as long as the athletes met certain academic eligibility requirements.
"Marshall University's football team, almost every one of them transferred. They had to drop out of a bowl game," Tuberville said. "Their coach left and they followed them."
Marshall was set to face Army in the Radiance Technologies Independence Bowl. Instead, dozens of Marshall athletes entered the transfer portal. Army will now face Louisiana Tech instead.
"I understand families being in a situation where they may never make more money than they're making right now. And so that's what they're being guided by. We're teaching kids to flee, not fight."
UNLV Quarterback Matthew Sluka announced in September he would enter the transfer portal for a second time in his college career. Sluka’s agent said a $100,000 NIL payment was never fulfilled after he agreed to transfer to UNLV.
"Graduation rates have been destroyed because the combination of NIL and the transfer portal working together, these guys are free agents," Pearl sad. "In some cases the money can be significant."
State laws also differ on who can represent student athletes. In 2019, the Uniform Law Commission recommended states adopt the Uniform Athletes Agents Act. It allowed student athletes to hire agents with the intent of protecting them from unfair practices. At least 39 states have adopted the law but it has no mention of NIL. Some legislatures have added agent clauses to state laws.
"Players have agents, they have lawyers, they have accountants. That's what we fought against for many, many years. Don't sign with agents. Keep them out of your life. But college football, college sports have grown."
The NCAA will now allow universities to pay players directly, in addition to what they are already receiving through scholarships and third-party payments. Each school has a cap of up to $20.5 million across all sports. Schools are already directing most of that to football programs.
"We're going to lose a lot of football programs, basketball programs and women's sports if we don't come up with some kind of solution. The NCAA has got to work with us," Tuberville said. "There's really not a lot of answers when you got so many hands in the pie and everybody wants it their way."
The U.S. Supreme Court issued several major decisions over the course of 2024.
Its rulings include those that have pushed back on the Biden administration's attempted change of Title IX protections for transgender students, reversed a 40-year precedent that had supported what conservatives have condemned as the administrative state in Washington, and considered the constitutionality of Republican-controlled state efforts to curtail what they define as liberal Silicon Valley biases online.
The high court also ruled on presidential immunity at a consequential time for current President-elect Trump during the 2024 election – and sided with a Jan. 6 defendant who fought a federal obstruction charge.
Here are the top cases considered by the justices over the past year.
The Supreme Court on Aug. 16, 2024, kept preliminary injunctions preventing the Biden-Harris administration from implementing a new rule that widened the definition of sex discrimination under Title IX to include sexual orientation and gender identity, while litigation over the rule continues.
After the Fifth and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeal denied the administration's request to put a stay on the injunctions, the Department of Education turned to the Supreme Court, arguing that some parts of the rule should be able to take effect. The Supreme Court rejected their request.
"Importantly, all Members of the Court today accept that the plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief as to three provisions of the rule, including the central provision that newly defines sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity," the court's unsigned opinion said, concluding that the Biden administration had not "adequately identified which particular provisions, if any, are sufficiently independent of the enjoined definitional provision and thus might be able to remain in effect."
In April, the Department of Education issued the new rule implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, arguing that expanding the definition of discrimination to include "sexual orientation and gender identity" would protect LGBTQ students. Louisiana led several states in suing the DOE, contending the new rule "violates students' and employees' rights to bodily privacy and safety."
Title IX implemented the long-standing athletics regulation allowing sex-separate teams decades ago, and Republicans contended Biden’s new rule would have significant implications on women- and girls-only spaces and possibly legally back biological males playing in women’s sports. Separate court injunctions blocked the rule from taking effect in 26 states.
"I’m grateful that the Supreme Court agreed not to block our injunction against this radical rewrite of Title IX," Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement at the time. "Other than the 19th Amendment guaranteeing our right to vote, Title IX has been the most successful law in history at ensuring equal opportunity for women in education at all levels and in collegiate athletics. This fight isn’t over, but I’ll keep fighting to block this radical agenda that eviscerates Title IX."
The Supreme Court on July 1, 2024, kept on hold efforts by Texas and Florida to limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content in a ruling that strongly defended the platforms’ free speech rights.
Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said the platforms, like newspapers, deserve protection from governments’ intrusion in determining what to include or exclude from their space. "The principle does not change because the curated compilation has gone from the physical to the virtual world," Kagan wrote in an opinion signed by five justices. All nine justices agreed on the overall outcome.
The justices returned the cases to lower courts for further review in broad challenges from trade associations for the companies.
While the details vary, both laws aimed to address long-standing conservative complaints that the social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their viewpoints, especially on the political right.
The Florida and Texas laws were signed by Republican governors in the months following decisions by Facebook and Twitter (now X) to cut then-President Trump off over his posts related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
Trade associations representing the companies sued in federal court, claiming that the laws violated the platforms’ speech rights. One federal appeals court struck down Florida’s statute while another upheld the Texas law, but both were on hold pending the outcome at the Supreme Court.
In a statement made when he signed the Florida measure into law, Gov. Ron DeSantis said it would be "protection against the Silicon Valley elites."
When Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Texas law, he said it was needed to protect free speech in what he termed the new public square. Social media platforms "are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely – but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas," Abbott said. "That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas."
NetChoice LLC has sued Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
"The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded, because neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. NetChoice's decision to litigate these cases as facial challenges comes at a cost," the court wrote. "The Court has made facial challenges hard to win. In the First Amendment context, a plaintiff must show that 'a substantial number of [the law's] applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.' So far in these cases, no one has paid much attention to that issue."
The court said its analysis and arguments "focused mainly on how the laws applied to the content-moderation practices that giant social-media platforms use on their best-known services to filter, alter or label their users' posts, i.e., on how the laws applied to the likes of Facebook's News Feed and YouTube's homepage," but the justices said they "did not address the full range of activities the laws cover, and measure the constitutional against the unconstitutional applications."
The Supreme Court on July 1, 2024, ruled that former presidents have substantial protection from prosecution, handing a major victory to Donald Trump, the former president who at the time was the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and is now president-elect.
Trump had moved to dismiss his indictment in a 2020 election interference case based on presidential immunity.
The court did not dismiss the case, but the ruling did ensure the 45th president would not face trial in the case before the November 2024 election.
In a 6-3 decision, the court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
"The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive."
Trump, having won the 2024 presidential election, will take office Jan. 20, 2025.
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court on June 28, 2024, overruled the 1984 landmark decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
Known as Chevron deference, the 40-year-old decision instructed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when laws passed by Congress were too ambiguous. It had been the basis for upholding thousands of regulations by dozens of federal agencies, but has long been a target of conservatives and business groups who argue that it grants too much power to the executive branch, or what some critics call the administrative state.
Roberts, writing for the court, said federal judges must now "exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority."
The ruling does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron doctrine, Roberts wrote.
The reversal makes it so executive branch agencies will likely have more difficulty regulating the environment, public health, workplace safety and other issues.
The case came about when Atlantic herring fishermen sued over federal rules requiring them to pay for independent observers to monitor their catch. The fishermen argued that the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act did not authorize officials to create industry-funded monitoring requirements and that the National Marine Fisheries Service failed to follow proper rulemaking procedures.
In two related cases, the fishermen asked the court to overturn the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, which stems from a unanimous Supreme Court case involving the energy giant in a dispute over the Clean Air Act. In that case, the court upheld an action by the Environmental Protection Agency under President Ronald Reagan.
In the decades following the ruling, Chevron has been a bedrock of modern administrative law, requiring judges to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of congressional statutes.
The current Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has been increasingly skeptical of the powers of federal agencies. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch have questioned the Chevron decision. Ironically, it was Gorsuch’s mother, former EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, who made the decision that the Supreme Court upheld in 1984.
The Biden administration argued that overturning Chevron would be destabilizing and could bring a "convulsive shock" to the nation’s legal system.
The Supreme Court on June 28, 2024, ruled in favor of a participant in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot who challenged his conviction for a federal obstruction crime.
The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Joseph Fischer – a former police officer and one of more than 300 people charged by the Justice Department with "obstruction of an official proceeding" in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. His lawyers argued that the federal statute should not apply, and that it had only ever been applied to evidence-tampering cases.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held to a narrower interpretation of a federal statute that imposes criminal liability on anyone who corruptly "alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding."
The ruling reversed a lower court decision, which the justices said swept too broadly into areas like peaceful but disruptive conduct, and returned the case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Justice Department argued that Fischer’s actions were a "deliberate attempt" to stop a joint session of Congress directly from certifying the 2020 election, thus qualifying their use of the statute that criminalizes behavior that "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do" and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.
However, Roberts said the government stretched the law too far.
"January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government – the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. I am disappointed by today’s decision, which limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement reacting to the ruling.
"The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision," he said.
Fox News’ Chris Pandolfo, Bill Mears, Shannon Bream, Brooke Singman, Brianna Herlihy and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
