WASHINGTON >> The Supreme Court agreed today to hear TikTok’s challenge to a law that could ban its U.S. operations, putting the case on an exceptionally fast track, culminating in oral arguments at a special session Jan. 10.

In setting aside two hours for the argument, the justices signaled that they viewed the case as presenting questions of exceptional importance. The move came only two days after TikTok and its Chinese parent company filed an emergency application.

In another break with its usual practices, the court did not ask the government to respond to the application, instead treating it as a petition seeking review and granting it.

The court did not block the law while the case moves forward, which suggested that it may issue a ruling before the Jan. 19 deadline set by the law. That would mean that the case may be resolved before President-elect Donald Trump is inaugurated on Jan. 20.

The law allows the president to extend the deadline for 90 days in limited circumstances, and Trump has sent mixed messages about his support for the app.

President Joe Biden signed the law this spring after it was enacted with wide bipartisan support. Lawmakers said the app’s ownership represented a risk because the Chinese government’s oversight of private companies would allow it to retrieve sensitive information about Americans or to spread propaganda, though they have not publicly shared evidence that this has occurred. They have also noted that American platforms like Facebook and YouTube are banned in China, and that TikTok itself is not allowed in the country.

The case will have far-reaching consequences. Since TikTok officially landed in the United States in 2018, it has become a cultural juggernaut that wields influence over nearly every facet of American life. Users, especially members of Gen Z and millennials, turn to it for news, entertainment and shopping, lured by its canny recommendation engine, which compiles short videos for users in a main feed. The app can quickly become addictive, as it gauges users’ interests, down to the number of seconds they spend on each video.

The court has shown keen interest in recent terms in the application of free speech principles to giant technology platforms, though it has stopped short of issuing definitive rulings. It has also wrestled with the application of the First Amendment to foreign speakers, ruling that they are generally without constitutional protection, at least for speech delivered abroad.

———

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2024 The New York Times Company