We will hear an argument this morning in case 24-656, TikTok versus Garland, and the consolidated case.

Mr. Francisco.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, under the Act, one of America's most popular speech platforms will shut down in nine days.

That shouldn't happen for three reasons.

First, TikTok Incorporated is a U.S. company speaking in the

United States. The Act requires it to go dark unless bite dance executes a qualified divestager. Whether you

call that a ban or a divestiture, one thing is clear. It's a burden on TikTok speech, so the First Amendment applies.

Second, the Act is content-based from beginning to end. It applies only to social media platforms

that have user-generated content except for business, product, and travel reviews.

Within that content-based universe, it singles out a single speaker for uniquely harsh treatment,

and it does so because the government fears that China could, in the future,

indirectly pressure TikTok to disseminate foreign misinformation and propaganda.

Finally, the act can't satisfy any standard of scrutiny.

The government has no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda, and its fallback

that it seeks merely to prevent covertness makes no sense, since that could be

addressed with a risk disclosure.

The government's real target, rather, is the speech itself. It's fear that Americans, even if

fully informed, could be persuaded by Chinese misinformation. That, however, is a decision that

the First Amendment leaves to the people.

Given that, the government's data security rationale cannot independently sustain the Act, it is also grossly under-inclusive and ignores the most obvious, less restrictive

alternative, simply banning TikTok incorporated from sharing any sensitive user data with anyone.

In short, this act should not stand.

...