The Supreme Court unanimously found the new law that could lead to a ban of TikTok does not violate the First Amendment ...

The company argued that the law, citing potential Chinese threats to the nation’s security, violated its First Amendment ...

On Friday, the Supreme Court delivered a sweeping broadside against the First Amendment of the Constitution just days ahead ...

The move came after President-elect Donald Trump promised to issue an executive order that would roll back the effective date ...

This ruling will disappoint the app’s 170 million users in the United States. But it reflects eminently reasonable deference ...

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected TikTok ... First Amendment. There is a chance that President-elect Donald J. Trump will try to rescue the app, which boasts 170 million users in the United ...

although some expressed serious concerns about its First Amendment implications. TikTok is a platform used by about 170 million people in the United States, roughly half the country's population.

There are limits to the First Amendment, under established ... effectively ban the video-based social media app TikTok in the United States as of January 19, they will be asked to carve out ...

Doesn’t the Constitution mean what it says? Doesn’t no law mean no law? Regrettably, today, no law means whatever the court ...

Paul said he was disappointed, adding, "I do believe that banning a social media app like TikTok is a violation of the First Amendment." ...

Trump, declaring the continued operation of TikTok a national emergency, issued in 2020 an executive order designed to crack down on TikTok’s operations in the United States. His order stated ...