The president-elect said the law raises questions about legislative encroachment on executive authority.
President-elect Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to block a law that could ban TikTok within the United States, stating that he would like to pursue negotiations to resolve some of the issues involved and salvage the platform.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments over the law on Jan. 10, just nine days before the deadline for TikTok’s parent company to either divest from the platform in the United States or face an effective ban.
That Jan. 19 deadline is also just one day before Trump is expected to be inaugurated for his second term as president.
“President Trump 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,” his Dec. 27 amicus brief read.
Trump’s brief underscored the importance of the timing and urged the court to give him more of an opportunity to handle the issue as chief executive.
“This timing binds the hands of the incoming Administration on a significant issue of national security and foreign policy, and thus it raises significant questions under Article II,” the brief read.
Article II refers to the section of the constitution vesting executive authority with the president. Trump’s brief said the law raised questions about legislative encroachment on executive authority.
“The Executive, not Congress, is primarily charged with responsibility for the United States’ national security, its foreign policy, and its strategic relationship with its geopolitical rivals,” his brief read.
The law in question was passed with bipartisan support and signed by President Joe Biden earlier this year. TikTok challenged the law in federal court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that it satisfied a high level of scrutiny under the First Amendment.
Although the Supreme Court has decided to take up the First Amendment issue, Trump said he took no position on the merits of the underlying dispute.
By Sam Dorman
