Gordon L. Weil
We have front-row seats
for a major fight, perhaps the constitutional Fight of the Century.
Three contenders are in
the ring, each a heavyweight. They are the
Congress, the Supreme Court and President-elect Trump, who just got involved. The outcome could reveal which of them wields
the greatest power.
Last April, Congress
passed with overwhelming majorities, including all four Maine members, and
President Biden signed a law ordering ByteDance, the owner of the social media
giant TikTok, either to sell it or shut it down. The new unconditional federal law gave
ByteDance until January 19 to act. The
president is ultimately responsible for carrying it out
China has a record of
stealing or accessing U.S. data. This
week, the Treasury Department reported a “major incident” of Chinese hacking. China has been formally designated as an
American adversary.
Congress, Biden and
former president Trump have all expressed concern about the control of
ByteDance by China of a company that has access to personal information of
millions of Americans. While he was president,
Trump tried to shut it down, but was blocked by the courts.
But ByteDance
understandably opposed the law, so it challenged it on the grounds that
Congress had exceeded its authority under the Constitution. Because the First Amendment is meant to
prevent government interference with freedom of speech, it claimed that Congress
had gone too far.
If ByteDance did not
divest, the requirement to end the millions of communications that take place
on TikTok would amount to federal control of speech. The company also stated that it is owned by
international shareholders, not the Chinese government. But Congress had decided that China controlled
it, and that decision is not the key issue.
The case went first to a
three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. All three found that Congress had not
violated the Constitution, because it acted in the interest of national
security. The judges had been appointed
by presidents Reagan, Obama and Trump, making it difficult to call its ruling
partisan. ByteDance appealed to the
Supreme Court.
The Court is trying to
act quickly on the appeal. It must
decide whether Congress exceeded its legal powers, but it will not decide if TikTok
must close. That is a judgment for
ByteDance, which could resolve the matter by selling, though the law requires it
to have a buyer lined up by January 19.
If the Court decides that
Congress acted constitutionally, then ByteDance must quickly act. If it finds that Congress exceeded its
powers, ByteDance may continue to operate TikTok.
President-elect Trump’s
lawyers recently requested that the Court delay its proceedings until after he
takes office on January 20. They claim that Trump is uniquely qualified to
negotiate a resolution of the issue of China’s control. In effect, Congress and the Court should back
off and turn the matter over to him.
Trump’s last-minute move
seems to ignore the fact that the law takes effect if not declared
unconstitutional. He might try to avoid
that point by quickly deciding that China is not an adversary of the U.S.,
despite earlier findings by Biden, Congress and himself.
During the 2024
presidential campaign, Trump became quite popular on TikTok and told voters
that he would not let it close down.
This may be the reason why he has changed his views on its threat to
America security and the privacy of its users.
Trump has put the Supreme
Court and most of the GOP members of both the House and Senate on the
spot. In effect, he has asserted that both
his role as president and his superior powers of negotiation should displace
the normal legislative and judicial operations of the federal government. On January 19, Trump will not yet be
president, so can he now make this claim?
When the Court decided
that the president has almost unlimited powers, it might not have thought he
would want the Court itself to defer to him.
Now, the Court is on trial and will reveal how it reacts to his pressure
to step aside and let him settle the matter. If it gives Trump what he seeks, it would
surely have to be seen as a partisan, political body.
He would ignore a law backed
by his own supporters, who responded to his opposition to China. That’s possible, since he has explored
ignoring another long-standing law that limits presidential spending powers. His unusual Court filing is extravagant in its
self-praise, making it appear that he deserves deference not usually given to
presidents.
The conflict is about
whether Congress acted constitutionally, if the Court should suspend acting when asked by the president-elect, and if the election
empowers the president to rule rather than to govern within a system of checks
and balances.
All that makes for a big
fight.
No comments:
Post a Comment