The ban also comes into effect the day before President-elect Donald Trump is inaugurated as he has voiced support for finding another solution, adding a political crease to the already complicated tapestry that is the TikTok case.

“It’s undeniable that Trump is going to be a factor in the discussion.,” Norman Bishara, professor of business law and ethics in the Stephen M. Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan, told UPI.

“Congress spoke very clearly about the reasons why they want to make sure the ownership structure is different for TikTok. I don’t think that’s going to change. The chances of a discussion about a political solution or extension of this are back on the table with Trump in the White House.”

It was Trump who first targeted TikTok for a ban in 2020. A federal judge blocked his executive order, allowing the social media app to remain available to U.S. users.

During his campaign for re-election in 2024, Trump had a different perspective, telling potential voters that if they want to keep TikTok they should vote for him. He also joined the platform and used it to campaign. His account is followed by about 14.7 million users.

“It’s one of the big unknown factors,” Bishara said of Trump. “I’m not the first one to notice his views of TikTok have changed. His approach to China does seem to be changing. You have him inviting the Chinese Premier to his inauguration, the specter of tariffs, it’s complex. This one is more than other business litigation stories alongside a free speech litigation story. You don’t usually see this level of political engagement and rethinking at the highest levels.”

In December, Trump filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to delay the federal ban and allow him time to pursue another resolution. The Justice Department has urged the court to stay on schedule with its hearing and allow the ban to take effect on Jan. 19.

The hearing comes nearly a month after the U.S. Court of Appeals denied TikTok and owner ByteDance’s motion to stay the ban.

The court’s ruling is expected relatively quickly, though that does not mean its opinion will be immediately made available. It will have the option to delay enforcement of the ban and send the issue back to a lower court system to reconsider with its guidance. It can also endorse what the circuit court has decided and allow the ban to go into effect as is.

The timing is accelerated, Bishara said. However, considering TikTok’s prominence among American users, its value and the broader impact of banning it, it is clear why the Supreme Court would wish to weigh in.

“It’s extraordinary on a bunch of levels. The current Supreme Court is skeptical of regulation in general and government agencies having too much discretion,” Bishara said. “Some of those concerns have been underlying accusations Congress needs to do its job and give direction. This is an example of Congress speaking very loudly and clearly in a bipartisan fashion.”

On Congress’ part, its interest in maintaining national security overrides the free speech implications of a ban. It has held hours of hearings lamenting the risk posed by TikTok due to ByteDance’s relationship with the Chinese Communist Party. Those risks include surveillance by the Chinese government, the procurement and use of users’ data and users being influenced by an adversarial nation.

ByteDance was founded in China and owns several more apps operating in China. A majority of its current ownership is not based in China. TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, who is Singaporean, said during a Congressional hearing that 60% of ByteDance’s investors are global investors outside of China. Three of its five board members are Americans.

Chew emphasized during a Congressional hearing that he is not connected to the CCP in any way. TikTok has headquarters in Singapore and Los Angeles.

After Congress began to press TikTok about its ownership, the company established a United States-based data security team and began storing U.S. user data within the United States. This did not alleviate the concerns of Congress.

“It is a powerful statement about how America wants to think about innovation and competition,” Andrew Verstein, professor of law at UCLA, told UPI. “On those dimensions, it’s bad. TikTok may be a national security risk. There’s a real chance it is. It is also a super innovative player that is disrupting the environment, pushing existing players to innovate an existing business plan.”

As Trump’s inauguration nears, the pitfalls of TikTok’s competitors have grown more evident. Digital watchdogs such as the Center for Countering Digital hate and other critics have said that X has become rife with hate speech and disinformation since being purchased by Elon Musk, who removed the moderation mechanisms that combated those issues.

On Tuesday, Meta founder, chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced his platforms will be removing fact checking and guidelines meant to curb hate speech and disinformation.

Trump’s changing tune and the changing policies at X and Meta are not coincidences. Trump was once banned from both sites after spreading disinformation about the 2020 election for months, culminating in a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

Musk and Zuckerberg have since reinstated the president-elect and aligned themselves more closely with him.

Verstein observes that Trump has been plainly making amends with Zuckerberg along with demonstrating an openness toward finding a resolution with TikTok. The high court’s TikTok decision will directly impact its biggest competitors in Meta and X.

“The real question is whether this adjusts in a way that is somehow conducive to innovation and competition or if it reflects an increasing concentration on YouTube and Facebook,” Verstein said of TikTok’s user base. “Not because they’ve improved their technology and business plan but because they [the users] had to go somewhere.”

Despite the political implications, Verstein does not foresee the political leanings of the court having a great impact on its ruling.

Republicans and Democrats in Congress supported the ban, voting 360-58 in the U.S. House. It passed in the Senate 79-18, combined with a $95 billion foreign aid package for Ukraine and Israel and President Joe Biden ultimately signed it into law.

More than 1 billion users are active on TikTok monthly, including about 170 million in the United States. Several content creators filed a separate lawsuit, calling the law banning the platform “unconstitutionally over-broad.” It also cites a lack of evidence about the national security threat TikTok poses, instead relying on a hypothetical threat.

In TikTok’s lawsuit it argues that it is being singled out.

“For the first time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban,” the lawsuit reads. “That law — is unconstitutional. Banning TikTok is so obviously unconstitutional, in fact that even the Act’s sponsors recognize that reality and therefore have tried mightily to depict the law not as a ban at all but merely a regulation of TikTok’s ownership.”

Verstein contends that it is not unusual for Congress to engage in regulating a company’s ownership.

“The law is pretty clear. Congress has clearly had the authority for decades to engage in lawmaking about the ownership of enterprises,” he said. “Those laws have been upheld.”

The United States has long taken the position that China engages in harmful and unfair economic practices and censorship. Products like Facebook, Google and Instagram are banned in the country.

A ban on TikTok will bear striking similarities to the policies China receives criticism for, Verstein said.

“It’s bad messaging if you want to encourage other countries to be open to our products,” he said. “A ban on ByteDance’s ownership because you’re worried about espionage and worried about propaganda — that’s exactly what China bans Facebook for.”