The Supreme Court heard oral arguments over a law that could ban TikTok from the US, and it appears that the justices are not buying the app's interpretation of why the law violates its First Amendment rights. This development makes it increasingly unlikely that TikTok will be able to avoid a ban unless its China-based parent company, ByteDance, agrees to sell it or the Supreme Court blocks the law from taking effect before the January 19th deadline.

According to Bloomberg Intelligence senior litigation analyst Matthew Schettenhelm, TikTok's chances of winning at the Supreme Court have decreased from 30% to 20% after the justices' questioning. Schettenhelm believes that the court is unlikely to issue an administrative stay, which would pause the law's implementation, simply because of a change in administration. This would set a precedent that the court is hesitant to establish.

President-elect Donald Trump has expressed a desire to save the app, and in theory, he could declare that he won't enforce the divest-or-ban law. However, this move would not provide sufficient protection for companies like Apple and Google, which could be fined $5,000 per user that accesses TikTok if they maintain it in their app stores. US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar pointed out that the statute of limitations is five years, meaning that these companies could still face penalties even after Trump leaves office if the next administration chooses to enforce the law.

Schettenhelm warns that companies would be taking an enormous risk by not complying with the law, potentially facing hundreds of billions of dollars in liability. He doubts that companies would be willing to take this chance, especially given the uncertainty of Trump's enforcement intentions.

While Schettenhelm does not believe that a ruling against TikTok would create a precedent that threatens US-based social media companies, Cornell University law professor and First Amendment expert Gautam Hans disagrees. Hans worries that such a ruling could have broader implications for other companies, potentially allowing for backdoor speech regulations. During arguments, the justices and attorneys for TikTok and its users discussed hypotheticals about whether allowing a ban on certain types of corporate structure would allow for punishing companies for protected speech.

Hans expressed concern that the distinction between foreign and domestic ownership is not stable enough to alleviate fears of a slippery slope. He believes that the court's credulity in treating the law as not implicating free speech rights is unfortunate, and that a ruling upholding the TikTok ban could have far-reaching consequences.

A short order on the case could come as soon as Friday afternoon, after the justices meet. Alternatively, the court may release orders on Monday morning, although Schettenhelm cautions against reading into it if nothing is released by then. The fate of TikTok in the US hangs in the balance, and the next few days will be crucial in determining its future.