I'm Marissa Wong, Internet Lawfare, with an episode from the Lawfare

for March 22, 2006. On March 5th, two investors in Alphabet and Meta filed a lawsuit in the D.C. Circuit against

the Trump administration's multiple extensions of the TikTok shutdown and the sale of the social

media platform to a group of American and foreign investors. In their filing, the plaintiffs

alleged that the administration's actions run afoul of the law,

requiring TikTok to either separate from its China-based owner or face a ban in the United States.

For today's archive, I chose an episode from January 13, 2025, in which Kevin Frazier, Alan Rosenstein, and Ramya Krishnannan discussed the oral arguments at the Supreme Court over the banning of TikTok,

the requirements of the law in question, and their predictions on how the justices may rule.

The It's the Lawfare Podcast. I'm Kevin Frazier, Lawfare Tarbell Fellow in Artificial

with Lawfare Senior Editor Alan Rosenstein and Senior Staff Attorney at the Knight Institute,

Romia Krishman.

An injunction is only supposed to issue if the court, certainly when you have a duly enacted

act of Congress, if the court believes that there is a likelihood, I think maybe even a high

likelihood, that the requester will win on the merits, which I don't think anyone thinks.

So I think an injunction is just not on the table.

In a live recording on January 10th, we discussed the Supreme Court oral arguments over the

constitutionality of the TikTok divest or ban legislation, the arguments made in front of the

court, and how the court may rule.

So let's get into the weeds a little bit here. I guess we're all content

manipulators now. We saw that thrown out there. Whose speech is it anyways? Does anyone have eyes

on Jeff Bezos's family members? I'm concerned for their health and well-being, all that and more. We have a lot to

discuss. So let's kick it to Alan first. Alan, for the folks who haven't been in the weeds of this

...