Strict Scrutiny - SCOTUS Unanimously Upholds TikTok Ban

Episode Date: January 17, 2025

In the first emergency episode of 2025, Kate, Leah and Melissa break down the Court’s unanimous decision to uphold the upcoming TikTok ban in the United States. They cover the implications and possible unintended consequences, and Leah bids farewell to her personal Chinese spy. Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

This show is sponsored by BetterHelp. What do you want your 2025 story to be? Every January brings you 365 blank pages waiting to be filled. And we know at least some of them are going to be in the horror genre this time around. But you still have to write your own narrative within that. So in 2025 maybe you're ready for a plot twist, or maybe there's a part of your story you've been wanting to revise. You can think of therapy as your editorial partner, helping you write new chapters and create the story you deserve

to live. I've personally benefited from therapy. In fact, one of my favorite people's favorite pieces of advice is that every lawyer needs at least one therapist. There's therapy for the small stuff, everyday stuff just to cope with all of the BS. I'm not going to name names here. Then there's therapy for the big stuff. I know I added on some, a lot, of extra therapy in the wake of my accident this past summer. And after, as I'm figuring out what my new normal is going to be. One huge plus for BetterHelp is that it's fully online, which makes finding time to do an appointment so much easier because you can do it from anywhere. You can also easily switch therapists anytime at no extra cost and that helps you find someone you really click with. Write your story with BetterHelp. Visit betterhelp.com slash strict to get 10% off your first month.

That's betterhelp dot com slash strict. Mr. Chief Justice, if please report. It's an old joke, but when a argued man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word. She spoke, not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity. She said, I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks. Hello, and welcome back to Strict Scrutiny, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. We're your hosts. I'm Melissa Murray. I'm Leah Litman. And I'm Kate Shaw. It is only the third week

of 2025, and we are somehow already issuing emergency episodes. For reference, that didn't happen until February of 2024, so that may give you some indication of what we are somehow already issuing emergency episodes. For reference, that didn't happen until February of 2024, so that may give you some indication of what we are likely in for. The occasion for this one is the Supreme Court's decision in the TikTok case, TikTok versus Garland, though I think we're going to shorten it to TikTok block. I don't know, a little rhyme.

TikTok divestiture block, I think, is more accurate, but that doesn't have the same meaning to it. That doesn't work. OK, TikTok block is good. That does not work. Just trying to more accurate. But that doesn't have the same meaning to it. OK, TikTok block is good. That does not work. Just trying to be accurate. We are dispensing reliable news here. What is accuracy on the algorithm, Kate?

Exactly. Alternative facts. TikTok block. A week after the oral argument in the case, the court released its per curiam opinion. Per curiam just means the opinion was unsigned. It doesn't identify the author. The opinion is also unanimous, joined by all of the justices,

although justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch wrote separate concurring opinions as well. And as expected, because all joy must die at one first street, the court denied TikTok and TikTok's users requests for an emergency injunction against the law that will effectively ban TikTok in the United States. This means that the law will go into effect in two days,

at which point it will be illegal for US applications and platforms like Apple or Android to host and service TikTok. So in other words, the app isn't just going to disappear from your phone if you already have it, but it is going to become relatively unusable in a relatively short period of time because those platforms where you get your apps and your updates won't be able to provide an

update for TikTok and TikTok issues updates for its app probably around twice a week. So it's going to be obsolete relatively soon. But just as Melissa was saying, to be clear, the law doesn't operate directly on users. So it does not become unlawful for you to continue to check TikTok in the interim, but also as Melissa was just saying, unless... Unless I'm your mother, and then it does. And then it's definitely criminal to continue to use TikTok. It's definitely unlawful. I'm not telling this.

I'm gonna tell my kids it's a total ban. A total ban. They can't use it. But okay, in terms of what this means on the ground, we're gonna, in this short emergency episode, go through what happens or might happen next. So again, more of the practical fallout and also, of course, the opinion and what it said. And it will be sprinkled in with my anguished, forlorn messages about the demise of TikTok. Hopefully they will reach my Chinese spy, my personal Chinese spy who literally got

me through my elbow accident and gave me the will to live. I have to say I knew this was coming and yet it still made me very sad. I woke up this morning and watched and looked at extra TikTok. I've previously obviously referred to it as a dance app. It's so much more than that as will become clear throughout the episode. Like the love notes, the recent posts on TikTok from everyone to their Chinese spy, like they're hilarious.

They have just left me gagged. I love it. No apologies. I think I'm a little more sanguine about the demise of TikTok, mostly because literally my children would rather watch TikTok videos than read books. And that leaves me feeling some kind of way. But for the constitutional aspects in the court, yes,

I'm with you, Leah. For everything else, I don't know. Like, I hope you all find your Chinese spies. Maybe I'll convince you by the end. Maybe. Again, like, I'm in the middle somewhere. I'm not really sure how to feel. But let's talk about what might happen next for TikTok.

So TikTok might come to an end in a slightly different way than what you might anticipate given the court's opinion. So not just that it might become unusable or obsolete. According to some reports, the company plans to take the platform completely offline on Sunday once the ban goes into effect. And because we live in the most chaotic of times, there's just a good deal of uncertainty

about what might happen next. So let's tick through a couple of scenarios. Tick tock through. Tick tock. Tick tock on the clock. Here we go. So one, just in terms of injecting real uncertainty into the discourse, NBC has reported

that the Biden administration does not plan to levy billions of dollars in fines against companies that allow access to TikTok in the U.S. According to two administration officials, quote, the administration has decided to defer implementation of the law banning TikTok in the U.S. to the incoming Trump administration. So I think what this means is even though by its terms the law goes into effect on January 19th, while Joe Biden is still the president, they're just gonna pretend it doesn't and just pass the hot potato to the Trump administration

to do something about this mess, which I just wanna say that all strikes me as great on the eve of Trump's inauguration for the outgoing administration to openly embrace the position that laws passed by Congress are optional. So nice work, guys. Love to see it. But in any case, it's not even like that promise, or even if Donald Trump made a similar promise not to enforce the law, that any of that would ensure TikTok's continued availability because the law imposes $5,000 in fines per user with a

statute of limitations of five years. So that would be billions of dollars in liability. And because the statute of limitations is five years, the next, next administration, whoever that is, could still seek to impose those fines, even if the incoming Trump administration does not. Now, president-elect slash consummate dealmaker,

Donald Trump, is also reportedly making noise about trying to keep TikTok available in the United States. There are reports that Trump is exploring ways to extend the deadline of the law. The act permits the president to grant a one-time extension of no more than 90 days with respect to the prohibition's effective date if the president makes certain certifications to Congress that there is enough progress toward a qualified

divestiture. And it's not entirely clear how Donald Trump would do this or what all of that would entail. But perhaps anticipating that there is some kind of executive action forthcoming, Congress debated the possibility of an extension on Thursday. And let's just say that not everyone in the Republican coalition is in line with the president elect with regard to their affinity for TikTok.

Let's hear from Senator Tom Cotton. TikTok isn't just another social media platform. TikTok is a Chinese communist spy app that addicts our kids, harvests their data, targets them with harmful and manipulative content, and spreads communist propaganda. So let me be crystal clear. There will be no extensions, no concessions, and no compromises for TikTok. Real question, will TikTok be the straw

that broke the camel's back of the conservative coalition? Please say yes. Raw. Next question. But you know, no matter the answer to that question, I want to ensure, one Samuel Alito, that it will be okay. People will still be able to read the stories that are available on Pornhub. And if you don't understand that reference, stay tuned for our next episode. So Trump is also reportedly considering making a determination that would allow TikTok to continue not just temporarily, but indefinitely in the United States. The law by its terms says that TikTok cannot operate unless there's a substantial divestment from ByteDance, the Chinese company.

So if the president determines that there has been substantial steps toward that divestment, then the platforms would be able to host and service TikTok. The way the law works is that a qualified divestiture is supposed to be one that the president determines will result in the application no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary. And if Trump goes this route, he's likely to make this determination, but unclear whether that will actually rest on a real substantial divestment. but hey, the law is optional anyway. And facts don't matter. We know that from the Supreme Court too, right? So it's all just kind of up for grabs. Another thing that is in the works is Donald Trump is, as his Solicitor General nominee, told the Supreme Court,

attempting to negotiate some kind of deal. And since he is, also according to his Solicitor General nominee, the consummate dealmaker, who knows what will come of that. I'm really hoping that one thing that comes from it is a new Mark Burnett show, The Apprentice TikTok version, where contestants vie to run TikTok for Donald Trump. And we don't want the president that we're gonna have in 20 years. And I'm really, you know, that's how it's gonna work. That's how it's going to work. That's how we pick presidents these days. I don't want to experience that show without TikTok, though. Because it makes those things all the more fun

when you have all of these different people piling on and satirizing them. And yeah, anyways. So all of this is to say that in what may end up being one of the more remarkable self-owns, Democrats may have turned themselves into the party that attempted to kill TikTok, and Trump will be the one to have saved it.

Truly genius move. Sam Alito is literally cackling to himself. And Donald Trump could get credit, even though he was the first president to explore banning TikTok. He tried to do it with an executive order that was blocked by courts. LESLIE KENDRICK Okay, as is probably clear from this discussion, the point is that there is a lot that is in flux and the situation is quickly developing.

We are recording this, you know, about an hour after the Supreme Court issued its order on Friday. So maybe let's turn to that now. What did the Supreme Court say in this order to get to this result? So it assumed that the law triggered some kind of First Amendment scrutiny, but it concluded that the law was content neutral, which meant the law wasn't subject to strict scrutiny, but rather intermediate scrutiny. The standard of review, i.e. whether strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny or the lowest level of review, rational basis review applies, is really important here because the standard of review dictates how closely the court will look at the law and whether the court will make extra sure

that the government's stated purpose for the law is, in fact, its actual purpose and whether the court will look closely to see whether the law's restrictions on speech advance those stated aims and do so in a way that is no more restrictive than necessary to advance those stated aims and do so in a way that is no more restrictive than necessary to advance those aims. So here, for example, the court rejected the petitioners proposed alternatives that would have been less restrictive to TikTok, like, for example, having a disclosure requirement

that disclosed that TikTok and ByteDance had some kind of ties to the Chinese government. The court rejected that argument on the view that there is latitude that the courts afford the government for designing regulatory solutions, and these are entirely pertinent when you're in that intermediate standard of review. So not as strict as strict scrutiny, not as deferential as rational basis,

but even in that intermediate area, there's some latitude that the government is owed. Some third thing, where the government apparently just wins when it says national security. It feels a little bit like rational basis, but never mind. Exactly. So why did the court conclude that this law was content neutral?

A content-based regulation is something that applies to particular speech because of the topic or message, whereas a content-neutral law is one that still restricts speech, but not because of its content. So here the government said it was restricting speech because the platform was effectively owned and controlled by a foreign adversary who was determined to be hostile to the United States. So the court focused in its discussion on the data protection slash data collection rationale and found that that was

sufficient to uphold the law. And this is kind of how we predicted when we discussed the oral argument in the case. So the government had actually offered two justifications for the law. First that the ban prevented China from collecting data that it might use for blackmail, corporate espionage, things like that. And then the second justification was that the ban prevented China from covertly manipulating what content users see. The first of these rationales, the data collection rationale, is much more removed from the content of what's

available on TikTok, what the algorithm recommends. And therefore, it is just further field from the First Amendment so that it merits a less stringent standard of review. Although some might argue that the content manipulation rationale is, in fact, content-based, but in this case, the court said it didn't have to consider whether that rationale would trigger strict scrutiny because, quote, the record before us adequately supports the conclusion

that Congress would have passed the challenge provisions based on the data collection justification alone, end quote. So nothing to see here, folks. So that part of the opinion is a little concerning to me because it made me wonder, are they going to, in other cases, allow governments to basically hide or get away with content-based justifications, motivations, by covering them up with and citing content-neutral

justifications as well? Well, in particular, ones that sound in national security rationales. Right. Yeah, I think that's genuinely concerning. Yes, this is me staring in Arlington Heights. This is basically what the court does in situations where you have facially neutral laws that

have discriminatory impact. And the court's like, no big deal, because you didn't actually write into the letter of the law that you were going to be discriminating. And so here we go. Same thing. So as to that content neutral data collection rationale,

the court emphasized about how the reporting has suggested TikTok's data collection practices include gathering stuff like age, phone number, location, internet address, phone contacts, social network connections, and the content of private messages that are sent through the application, as well as the videos people watch. And it rejected the suggestion that the law was problematic because there was not yet

evidence that China was using the data for blackmail or espionage, or because there wasn't yet evidence China manipulated the algorithm. The court wrote, quote, even if China has not yet leveraged its relationship with ByteDance to access US TikTok users' data, petitioners offer no basis for concluding that the government's determination that China might do so is not at least a reasonable inference based on substantial evidence." So the court avoided grounding its ruling on the idea that the law operates only on ByteDance, and the court also didn't say that the law was fine because it merely regulated the owner of the platform.

So the court seemed to recognize that law is favoring some speakers over others, sometimes do reflect a view about content, but that other times they don't. And the court did take pains repeatedly to emphasize the narrowness of its ruling. So here's one representative quote, TikTok scale and susceptibility to foreign adversary control, together with the vast swaths of sensitive data the platform collects, justify differential treatment to address the government's national security concerns." And in a few passages, it actually drove me insane. I don't know about you guys, but the court defensively was like, this is all pretty tentative and sketchy because we had so little time to consider and decide the case. This is really one of these ticket for

one bride only kinds of opinions. Don't take much First Amendment content from what we are saying, which like... Don't take anything we say seriously. It's not like law in the real sense. It's like, my guys, you know, first of all, like, you did not have to take this case at all. This was a case the D.C. Circuit had already decided and had already upheld the law. So all the Supreme Court did was take the case, write a very rushed opinion saying, yeah, DC Circuit, you got it right. The DC Circuit also used intermediate scrutiny. They didn't even differ. No, they did nothing very different except for they casually dropped

a lot of, you know, First Amendment doctrine that again, they are trying to control the application of but good luck with that. So awesome. It's a heapete. It's a heapete and they are literally sloppy. We didn't have enough time. If this is really sloppy, it's because we were rushed. They rushed us. I mean, yeah. Very masculine energy in this heapete. In some ways that's the most masculine energy. Well, we're going to get there, but Neil Gorsuch has some real conservative grievance energy in his concurrence too. So we'll get there. Tie a knot.

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Zbiotics Pre-Alcohol. I've had to face it after a night with drinks, I just don't bounce back the next day like I used to. I used to think I had to make a choice. I could either have a great night or a great next day. That is, until I found pre-alcohol. Z-Biotics' pre-alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in

the gut. And it's this product, not dehydration, that's to blame for your rough next day. Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow. I first gave pre-alcohol a try a while back. Now I pack it when we're going on vacation, when I know we're going to be having some night outs, after which I'm going to need to be ready to go for hikes and whatnot the next morning. I drank it before my first lychee martini, there were several our past trip to Miami, and I still felt on top of my game the very next morning to begin some birthday celebrations. Go to zbiotics.com slash strict to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use strict at checkout. Zbiotics is backed with 100% money back guarantee, so if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked.

Remember to head to zbiotics.com slash strict and use a code strict at checkout for 15% off. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Cook Unity. I'm a planner, shocking I know. And that means a lot of my days and a lot of my time can revolve around meal planning or prep. I don't wanna get into a rut, I also wanna make sure I'm eating a balanced diet. I found Cook Unity to be a huge help

with their endless variety of vibrant, healthy meals. The meals are also curated by award-winning chefs. You'll recognize a bunch of the names. They're the chefs you see on TV and in five-star kitchens. And they're the ones who are going to craft each small batch meal with you in mind. When I was perusing Cook Unity, I noticed Fabio Viviani from Top Chef

was one of the meal preparers. I love getting to sample his fresh Italian meals, like the rigatoni with burrata. In fact, all of the meals are made from local in-season ingredients, sent fresh, not frozen, and delivered directly to your door, at a fraction of the cost and time, so I can save time for all of the other things I need to do, whether that's grading, working on the book, reading books, and watching television. It's all important.

Here are a few of my favorite delights I've gotten from Cook Unity. The Mission Style soy rizzo burrito were fake meat aficionados in this house and that hit all the spots. I also loved the Crab and Shrimp and Curry Sauce, a perfect lunch for wintery days. As just those two suggest, there's a ton of variety in the chef-prepared meals. You can also personalize your plans

in a million different ways to find stuff you like. And the menus are updated weekly so you won't get bored. In fact, it will help you avoid boredom by saving you time so you can do all of the other fun things with the free time you'll save from not having to meal prep or clean up. You can enjoy restaurant quality meals for a fraction of the price. Subscriptions start as low as $11 a meal. Flexible, commitment-free subscriptions is what they offer as well, so you can skip deliveries, pause, or cancel anytime. Reset your routine with convenient mouthwatering meals crafted with local ingredients by award-winning chefs. Go to cookunity.com

slash strict or enter strict before a checkout for 50% off your first week. That's 50% off your first week by using code strict or going to cookunity.com slash strict. week by using code strict are going to cookunity.com slash strict. All right. So this is just an opinion about the first amendment the court repeatedly says and what the government can do when it comes to speech by just invoking national security. And it does all of this on the eve of the second Trump administration. So despite the court's professed narrow decision, it does feel like this is really consequential and indeed maybe giving the Trump administration going forward some real ammunition in which to be fast and loose

about First Amendment concerns in the context of national security. And again, the court seems to be saying national security might be a get out of jail free card. I know we keep saying that, but there are a lot of get out of jail free cards going around. They love to dish them out, either to Trump directly or on the eve of his administration.

It's just like a really great time, guys, to be emphasizing the large amount of deference given to the federal government whenever it invokes national security in the context of a constitutional challenge. I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong here. Right and to go back to what I just said, they didn't have to take it at all. They didn't have to take it and decide it. But maybe actually they did because they wanted to just write

something as a little inauguration eve gift to Trump that says you get a lot of leeway if you just say these magic words. It's got real that guy in your law school section energy, right? The court always insists they need to be the ones to say something, even if doing so makes it worse. Well, it's actually it's that guy energy two minutes before class is supposed to end.

Yes. Yeah, I mean, that's the guy, and that's the energy. Yeah. So I wanted to highlight one additional passage from the opinion, which is near the opening, where the court said, quote, as Justice Frankfurter advised 80 years ago in considering the application of established legal rules to the, quote, totally new problems raised

by the airplane and radio, we should take care not to, quote, embarrass the future, end quote. Too late. Right. You guys already do that enough in your other opinions and extracurriculars, so I guess you didn't want to do so here, but whatever. Don't they embarrass the present as well?

Yes. It's not just the past and the past. Past, the present, future. The jobs. Right? They do not discriminate. Content neutral. History neutral.

Time neutral. Yes. All of it. Let's talk about the separate writings. So Justice Sotomayor wrote a very short concurrence in which she made clear that while she joined most of the court's opinion, she didn't join all of it, she would not have joined part 2a, I think it was, which is where the court talked about whether or not

the First Amendment was implicated. She said, there really is no question here based on our precedence that the First Amendment is, in fact, implicated. The procurium opinion of the court assumed without deciding that the First Amendment was implicated. And she was like, yes, correct.

Move on. Justice Gorsuch spent four-ish pages, several of them bitching about how quickly the court had to act in the case, which prevented him from writing more of his usual drivel. He said, quote, we have had a fortnight to resolve finally and on the merits, a major First Amendment dispute affecting more than 170 million Americans.

Given those conditions, I can sketch out only a few, and admittedly, tentative observations, end quote. If they're tentative, why bother sharing them? Work them out on the remix, my guy. He can't help himself. No, he can't. I love the use of Fortnite, like ahoy. No, you stay, you keep Taylor Swift out of your fucking mouth, Neil. He also says he's not sure the law doesn't trigger strict scrutiny. What? And doesn't like deciding what level of scrutiny applies, like being forced to do actual law is kind of a drag on him.

Okay, wait, can I actually just like weirdly come to the defense of Neil Gorsuch? Some of the energy in that separate concurrence was a little bit Justice Stevens, like sometimes these like tiers of scrutiny we like pretend create these sort of formal categories in the world. So that is the charitable reading, is he was at least he was evincing some, I think. Consider the source, Kate. Consider the source. Right in isolation, there is like a kernel of insight. No, it needs to be read in the context of these Trump appointed judges being like, let's just do away with the tears of scrutiny and do history and tradition instead, right?

That is what Neil Gorsuch, right, is gesturing. Not in the tradition of John Paul Stevens. No. Okay. And to be fair, this is a four-page writing where I think the most important thing he wanted to get out was that we didn't have enough time. This isn't my best work. Right. I wanted to do like 40 pages. Yeah.

Less on the tiers of scrutiny, more on like, this isn't Neil at his best. And it's fair. It isn't Neil Gors best. And I'm like, fair. Right. It isn't you. The conservative grievance energy. He is always the victim, right? He did talk about the censorship of the conservative. Of their own scheduling choices.

He is the victim of that. He's the victim of John Roberts. So he talked about that. I mean, he talked about the importance of these issues because there are so many social media platforms that engage in the censorship of conservative viewpoints. That is in there. And he made sure to put it in.

But he concluded, even though strict scrutiny might apply, he wasn't so sure that the law would be constitutional under any level of scrutiny. As Kate was suggesting charitably, to me this wasn't the most annoying Neil Gorsuch separate writing, but I just wasn't in the mood for it right now, like on the eve of TikTok's demise. Not the guy I want to hear from.

It's raw for you right now. No, it's not raw for me right now, in the sense in which I invoked it earlier. I just meant you're in your feelings right now. Yes, no, I am in my feelings. Because now we are going to be experiencing the release of Reputation Taylor's version without TikTok, like without all of these TikTok sluice to find all of

the amazing Easter eggs and nuggets in there. I mean, again, my personal Chinese spy gave me the will to live this summer by showing me all of the Heiress Tour surprise songs from the night before whenever I would wake up to do my physical therapy without TikTok I wouldn't know what color Taylor Swift's nails were at all of these things we wouldn't have the Apple dance we wouldn't have just like all of these like amazing different communities that are fun funny entertaining and again I understand the problems with social media, TikTok in particular. I think people should both read books and use social media, but it's a loss for me. I am sad.

But it may just be that you're going to have some brologa and his algorithm trying to cheer you up first thing in the morning, right? So that is one possible route. I also want to emphasize for whoever might be listening, the Chinese spy is a metaphor. Like she is just joking around. We don't actually have a personal Chinese spy. It goes to something that came up during the argument, which is everybody on TikTok

knows that there's some affiliation between the platform and the Chinese government because people were just making TikToks that are jokingly addressed to my personal Chinese spy, evincing their awareness that China is, in fact fact watching and monitoring them. And it is, you know, they were also, I'll get to what they were also doing a little bit later, but back to the tech, because one possibility coming out of all of this is this is going to become another kind of manifestation or expansion of the tech prologarchy.

So the platform's CEO, Sho Zichu, was among the many tech executives who visited Trump's country club Mar-a-Lago last month. Can I just add, this is the same guy who appeared before Congress and Tom Cotton, whose views about Tech Talk we have now shared, literally peppered him. Not even just kind of assaulted him with questions about whether he was.

He's like, aren't you Chinese? He's like, no, dude. I'm from Singapore. He's like, have you ever had another passport? Nope, just Singapore. Nope. Ever applied for citizenship anywhere else? Nope, just Singapore.

Yeah, I mean, it was a lot. But he's at Mar-a-Lago bending the knee. Right, and at the same time, you know, Shozi Chu is there, Mark Zuckerberg. Mark Zuckerberg? Makes him sound way cuddlier. He is the bear. Don't you choose that bear.

Yeah, don't choose that bear. Choose the other bears. Mark Zuckerberg, who obviously leads. Any bear, really. Who leads Metta, youta, owns Facebook and Instagram, is also groveling before Donald Trump and potentially stands to benefit from a TikTok ban. And this law could maybe shift control over TikTok

to a US billionaire and an aspiring or current oligarch. These considerations pull in different directions when you're thinking about what they might lead Donald Trump to do. But the point is the appearance of corruption influencing the decision is both stark and foul. Lyle Ornstein And in addition to the Mar-a-Lago visits that you just mentioned, I'm pretty sure all these guys are going to be at the inauguration on

Monday. So as the master dealmaker assumes control of the nuclear codes and the world's most powerful military, maybe he can do a side deal to see which brologuarch is going to get the rose to become the next head of TikTok. So get a lot done in one day. OK, that is truly dark and deep. Let's identify some of the unintended consequences

of the TikTok ban, things that maybe the court did not really anticipate coming when they issued this decision. So one thing that has happened is because of the impending ban, the most downloaded app among leading app stores in the United States this week was another Chinese social media app, this one called Xiao Hongxu, which means little red book, like Mao Zedong's little red book. But it uses as its English name, red note. And this one is actually run by the Chinese government. So kind of an epic fail here, guys. The app's terms reportedly include things like you have to agree to be a member of the Chinese Communist Party and uphold socialist values.

And America's young people are just flopping. Yes. Like, did John Roberts see this coming? I don't know. Amanda Hess of the New York Times described what is happening on Red Note in this way. Quote, Chinese power users and American newbies are spontaneously performing a mocking burlesque of national security policy, end quote. Great job, America. First rate. Yeah. So those are the TikTok refugees. Already mentioned the Chinese spy videos that people

are making on TikTok. People are also making videos where they are literally just sharing their personal information on TikTok. Here's my email address. Here's my date of birth, right? Like China FYI, they are mockingly simulating sending care packages to the Chinese Communist Party, which they enclose like a cheek swab and a hair.

They are becoming very angry about how the US federal government doesn't protect their data anyways. And the Red Note videos are generating truly unhinged videos about how China is just immensely better than the United States. There was one that was so funny. There was a post that I saw on Blue Sky where I think American users were inviting Chinese users to explain what's the weirdest thing about the United States to them. And a Chinese user apparently wrote, why do you eat like your health care is free? Sick burn. Sick burn. And again, like these are the kinds of

conversations and like fun mocking jives that are happening on TikTok and are now happening on a social media platform actually owned by the Chinese. Literally called Little Red Book. Right. And Donald Trump has just given us the warning that he's already working on it. So on his own social media platform, True Social, he said, quote, the Supreme Court decision was expected and everyone must respect it. My decision on TikTok will be made in the not too

distant future, but I must have time to review the situation. Stay tuned, exclamation mark. Big Neil Gorsuch energy. I need time for this. It's also just inviting, like, y'all lobby me and worse. Yes. Because we're about to be open for business. Show me how much you want it

yeah right Marlago has a private jet landing strip so yes come on down fellas yeah okay so Monday so donate to my inaugural fun still open I am NOT personally making videos to my Chinese spy even though I was jokingly speaking to them over the airwaves on this episode. But I did want to just take this moment to briefly share the music that everyone on TikTok is using as background for their odes to their Chinese spies. So people who are not on TikTok and haven't experienced this can get a flavor of, again, the humor and whatnot that is happening on the app. So here you go. Melissa, have I changed your mind? Have I softened you on TikTok a little? I mean, I just, again, like- Just give me this. A little. Okay. I mean-

Thank you. Mostly for the free speech. Yes. Thank you. I, mostly for the free speech. Yes, I'm here for the free speech. Oh, well, I documented all of the amazing free speech that was happening. Some of it, anyways. No, but seriously, people are sharing about how they helped realize they were bisexual or lesbian because of the content that was available to them on TikTok at a time when Facebook is censoring minors

from searching for LGBT rights issues. And a bunch of other stuff goes on. And it just, it makes me sad. I mean, if my kids were using TikTok to find recipes to make dinner, I would be entirely more inclined. But mostly, it's just how to do avatar makeup, watching basketball videos, like just flooding the zone really.

You need moments of joy in the shit, right? Because like I watch Ellie the elephant do dances and other things. I do love that. Right, exactly, exactly. I had previously posted things. I basically stopped. I'm not good at creating content, but I love consuming it. So don't worry, Melissa's daughter. But I know TikTok wasn't your metier. Or at least you thought it wasn't. No, it's not.

You know, it is my metier. If you want to preorder my book, Lawless, you can do so. We will include a link in the show note and on social media, the platforms we are allowed to continue to use. Stay tuned for Book Talk on Lawless, also coming at you. But there won't be Book Talk, T-OK. There will only be Book T-A-L-K. Maybe it'll be Red Book Book Talk,

and we can do it there. The cover is like a salmon pink. So yeah. It's a good cover. Thanks so much for joining us for this emergency episode. I know it's weird to have it so early in the year. It's January, but this is how we do. So thank you, One First Street, for giving us an occasion

to get together twice on a single day. Good job. Strixxurtney is a Crickin Media production hosted and executive produced by me, Leo Littman, Melissa Murray, and Kate Shaw. Produced and edited by Melody Rowell. Michael Goldsmith is our associate producer. Audio support from Kyle Seglen and Charlotte Landis. Music by Eddie Cooper. Production support from Madeline Herringer and Ari Schwartz. Matt DeGroote is our head of production.

And thanks to our digital team, Phoebe Bradford and Joe Matoski. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. Subscribe to Strict Scrutiny on YouTube to catch full episodes. Find us at youtube.com slash at Strict Scrutiny podcast. If you haven't already, be sure to subscribe to Strict Scrutiny in your favorite podcast app so you never miss an episode. And if you want to help other people find the show, please rate and review us. It really helps.