Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Ad image

D.C. Circuit panel rejects TikTok’s request to uphold TikTok divestiture law.

MONews
3 Min Read

at order of the day:

At the parties’ request, this court expedited hearing the case “to ensure sufficient time to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court before the statutory ban takes effect.” Pursuant to the parties’ proposed schedule, on December 6, 2024, this Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Act on each of the claims filed by petitioners and denied petitioners’ superseding motions for temporary restraining order and appointment of special orders. I did it. master.

The petitioners are now seeking a “temporary pause” to “create time for further deliberations.” They argue that the injunction “will allow the Supreme Court to consider this case in a more orderly manner” and “will give the next administration time to decide its position on this very important issue.”

However, the petitioner said, “It is not simply that we want to stay. [this] But it is a presumptively valid injunction against the execution of an Act of Congress.” This “temporary injunction against execution is really a stay of action, a delay to a date chosen by Congress to carry out the policy of its choice.” This is especially true because the bill reflects a deliberate choice by Congress and the President to firmly establish a 270-day clock, so that the law’s prohibitions would go into effect with respect to TikTok once certain conditions are met.

Petitioners have identified no instances in which a court has rejected a constitutional challenge to an act of Congress and then barred the law from taking effect pending review by the Supreme Court. Petitioners justified a preliminary ban on this law based on their First Amendment claims. In response to these claims, this court has already unanimously concluded that the law meets First Amendment requirements under enhanced scrutiny.

In light of that decision, the length of time a petitioner can seek further review from the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court’s discretion to determine whether and to what extent to grant temporary injunctive relief while the Court considers petitions that: I am interested in protecting it. Writ of certiorari, this court’s temporary injunction against the law is unreasonable.

Share This Article