Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, 604 U.S. ___ (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case brought by ByteDance Ltd. and TikTok on the constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) based on the Freedom of Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the Bill of Attainder Clause of Article One, Section Nine, and the Due Process Clause and Takings ...
10 January 2025: The Supreme Court's nine justices hear from lawyers representing TikTok and content creators that the ban would be a violation of free speech protections for the platform's more ...
TikTok educational influencer Tiffany Cianci livestreams outside the Supreme Court as the court hears oral arguments on whether to overturn or delay a law that could lead to a ban of TikTok in the ...
TikTok filed an appeal with the Supreme Court seeking an emergency injunction to block a U.S. law from going into effect that would impose a nationwide ban on the popular app unless Chinese parent ...
Before 1990, the rules of the Supreme Court also stated that "a writ of injunction may be granted by any Justice in a case where it might be granted by the Court." [197] However, this part of the rule (and all other specific mention of injunctions) was removed in the Supreme Court's rules revision of December 1989.
(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Friday on whether the law banning TikTok is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment rights of the 170 million ...
But in Monday's ruling, Judge Paul Mathias wrote on behalf of the appeals court that TikTok’s millions of Indiana users and the $46 million in Indiana-based income the company reported in 2021 create sufficient contact between the company and the state to establish the jurisdiction of Indiana’s courts over TikTok, The Times of Northwest ...
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that Congress could regulate the sale of private property to prevent racial discrimination: "[42 U.S.C. § 1982] bars all racial discrimination, private as well as public, in the sale or rental of property, and that the statute, thus construed, is a valid exercise of the power of ...