Draft:TikTok, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Commerce
On August 6th, 2020, President Donald J Trump issued an executive order banning any and all transactions with ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok.[1]. On August 14th, 2020, another executive order was issued demanding that ByteDance sell TikTok to a U.S. company within 60 days.[2] Following these actions, TikTok, Inc and ByteDance, LTD filed a federal lawsuit in the Central District of California against President Donald J Trump in his official capacity, Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce, and against the United States Department of Commerce. The case was assigned to District Judge Otis D. Wright II and referred to Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero.[3] The case is still pending litigation.[3] The summons request was served to the defendants on August 27th, giving them 60 days to submit a reply.[4] Any of the defending parties have not yet submitted a formal reply to the suit.[3] The plaintiffs in the suit are represented by attorneys Alexander Berengaut, Anders Linderot, John Edward Hall, Megan Keenan, and Mitchell Kamin from the Covington & Burling LLP firm, based out of Washington D.C. and out of the 5 of them, 3 are appearing Pro Hac Vice.[5] The firm has a history of fighting the Trump Administration in the State of California.[6][7]
TikTok's Case[edit]
TikTok Claims the executive orders issued "[have] the potential to strip the rights of that community without any evidence to justify such an extreme action, and without any due process." They claim the administration has not only violated their First Amendment of the United States Constitution's rights, but the rights found in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the laws which the order was based off of, The International Emergency Economic Powers Act and National Emergencies Act.[8][9]
Full List of Claims by TikTok Included in The Lawsuit[3]:[edit]
- By banning TikTok with no notice or opportunity to be heard (whether before or after the fact), the executive order violates the due process protections of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
- The order is ultra vires because it is not based on a bona fide national emergency and authorizes the prohibition of activities that have not been found to pose “an unusual and extraordinary threat.”
- The order is ultra vires because its prohibitions sweep broadly to prohibit any transactions with ByteDance, although the purported threat justifying the order is limited to TikTok, just one of ByteDance’s businesses.
- The order is ultra vires because it restricts personal communications and the transmission of informational materials, in direct violation of IEEPA.
- IEEPA lacks any intelligible principle to guide or constrain the President’s action and thereby violates the non-delegation doctrine, as the President’s overbroad and unjustified claim of authority in this matter confirms.
- By demanding that Plaintiffs make a payment to the United States Department of the Treasury as a condition for the sale of TikTok, the President has taken Plaintiffs’ property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
- By preventing TikTok, Inc. from operating in the United States the executive order violates TikTok, Inc.'s First Amendment rights in its code, an expressive means of communication.
TikTok User Data Privacy Concerns[edit]
The Trump Administration has many times claimed TikTok was providing user data to the Chinese Government.[1] Other countries such as India have banned TikTok[10] throughout the whole country and The Department of Homeland Security, The Transportation Security Administration, and The United States Armed Forces have already banned the app on Federal Government phones.[1][11]
References[edit]
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 "Executive Order on Addressing the Threat Posed by TikTok". The White House. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
- ↑ "Order Regarding the Acquisition of Musical.ly by ByteDance Ltd". The White House. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 "Docket for TikTok Inc. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, 2:20-cv-07672 - CourtListener.com". CourtListener. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
- ↑ "Summons In a Civil Action" (PDF). Unknown parameter
|url-status=ignored (help) - ↑ "Parties for TikTok Inc. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, 2:20-cv-07672 - CourtListener.com". CourtListener. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
- ↑ Facebook; Twitter; options, Show more sharing; Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Email; URLCopied!, Copy Link; Print (2017-01-04). "California braces for a Trump presidency by tapping former U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder for legal counsel". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
- ↑ Twitter; options, Show more sharing; Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Email; URLCopied!, Copy Link; Print (2017-01-04). "California braces for a Trump presidency by tapping former U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder for legal counsel". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2020-09-10. Unknown parameter
|url-status=ignored (help); Missing|Authors list1=(help) - ↑ "Statement on the Administration's Executive Order". Newsroom | TikTok. 2019-08-16. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
- ↑ "Why we are suing the Administration". Newsroom | TikTok. 2019-08-16. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
- ↑ "India bans TikTok, dozens of other Chinese apps". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
- ↑ Meisenzahl, Mary. "US government agencies are banning TikTok, the social media app teens are obsessed with, over cybersecurity fears — here's the full list". Business Insider. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
This article "TikTok Inc. v. U.S. Department of Commerce" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:TikTok Inc. v. U.S. Department of Commerce. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.
