Thread by @stokel

A court hearing to determine whether TikTok is banned in the US today starts in Washington DC in 10 minutes. On a Sunday. Really. Lots has been happening overnight, with the tech industry saying a ban would be damaging

There are 29 other participants on the call, seven minutes before the hearing begins. Hello to everyone else wondering how the hell this madness is going to end

The sole silver lining of 2020 and the work from home movement means I am able to do court reporting in a different country while also doing the ironing

Preliminary observations from the judge in the case:
- this is a telephone hearing so everyone speaking has to introduce themselves for the help of transcription
- “there may be technological snafus... be patient”
- this hearing is open, but parties shouldn’t reveal sealed info

The judge is keeping the argument focused on a tightly drawn section of the case, which is interesting

“There is a backdrop here as to whether any of the actions... are adequately justified in either the president’s order or the secretary’s list,” says the judge. Seems to be suggesting the plaintiffs should look at the order running out tonight primarily

“TikTok is a modern day version of a town square... and it’s huge, your honour. If that prohibition goes into force at midnight tonight...” says the plaintiff’s representative. “It would be no different to the government roping off that public square... 37 days before election”

There is no rational connection between the App Store ban tonight and the national security arguments, argues TikTok’s lawyer. “That makes no sense to us except to stick it to this business,” says the plaintiff’s representative

Judge pushing back on TikTok’s argument: says what the US government is doing could simply be about capping the risk to those already on TikTok. TikTok’s lawyer arguing back that an App Store ban puts 100m users at risk from not getting important updates

TikTok’s representative claims the Department of Commerce’s plan to ban TikTok from the App Store tonight is “a blunt way to whack the company now while doing nothing to achieve the stated goal of prohibition”

The clients don’t agree divestment is the only solution to solve these data security concerns, says TikTok’s representative - strongly hinting how TikTok and ByteDance feel about being brought to the negotiating table

"Shutting down speech is the reason the government is doing this," says TikTok's legal team, making their argument that a ban would violate the first amendment

Judge Carl Nichols wants to hear more from TikTok's representatives about how the US government has avoided due process in its actions against TikTok. Interesting prompt

(I've finished my ironing, if anyone cares)

If you had "plaintiff's legal team citing Hamas" on your TikTok/Trump lawsuit bingo card, take a drink

Judge Nicholls seems to be needling in on the government's argument in a way that makes me think he's not 100% convinced by it

Why aren't the government's actions in banning TikTok from the app store "at a minimum indirect regulations [of free speech]?" The judge asks the US government's lawyers🤔

It's never a good sign when the judge says they're familiar with the case law you're referring to and believe it refers to an outdated statute, is it?

Having previously mentioned Hamas, we now have US government lawyers discussing bans on travel to Cuba in a lawsuit about whether an app should or shouldn't be banned

If I'm understanding the US government's argument correctly, they're saying that anyone who uses TikTok for free speech is doing the equivalent of trespassing because national security trumps the first amendment

OUCH. Judge Nichols asks the US government to disprove that the way they dealt with TikTok wasn't unconstitutional. "This was largely a unilateral decision with very little opportunity for plaintiffs to be heard... with the result of a farily significant deprivation"

The US government responds that TikTok has received significant notice, and more than was provided in a case around the Holy Land (which is the second reference to Hamas in this hearing).

US government's case concludes, and the judge asks TikTok for any rebuttal they have. Lawyers for the company cite the government's response to the WeChat case, saying that things have been done back to front

Hearing ends. Judge's intent is to issue an opinion and order "some time later today, but before 11:59pm" when the ban would take effect.There'll be a public order containing the ruling, and to issue the opinion under seal to the parties to review for public issue tomorrow

CANNOT WAIT for an afternoon and evening spent refreshing CourtListener

I'm going to be on @BBCNewshour later on to try and explain what's going on

The answer, because I'm going to bed soon, is we don't know. I figured by the judge's line of questioning that the TikTok app store ban won't happen, but then some legal folks who called the WeChat judgment confidently said they thought the judge gave TikTok as good a hiding

This is a personal plea to judge Carl J Nichols,,, please,,, don't make me stay up until 5am UK time. Give yourself a Sunday night off and give your judgment in the next 20 minutes 👊

TikTok has earned a (temporary) stay of execution. It won't be banned from app stores in the United States, the judge in TikTok's lawsuit against the US government has declared. It's only delaying a decision by a few weeks, allowing the case to be properly litigated

TikTok's official statement in response to the decision is much more conciliatory than its lawyers in the hearing yesterday, who said their client would rather not have to make a deal. Nonetheless, the psychodrama rolls on

If you're a producer on a TV or radio programme, or an editor at a publication looking for someone to contextualise this for your audience, I'm writing the book on this and have been following every twist and turn

You can also guarantee this is going in the book. Preorder it here to learn about what the hell has been going on canburypress.com/products/tik-t…

Big yikes in the just-unsealed opinion of the judge in yesterday's case about TikTok's app store ban. The US government's "prohibitions likely exceed the lawful bounds proscribed" by law. Not surprising, given it's Donald Trump, but this is a judge saying it in black and white

This footnote is delicious, too

The judge also says that data shared by users on TikTok wouldn't come under the Espionage Act, which the judge says the government was presenting "a novel reading" of in its argument

Judge Nichols draws a line between China (which I don't think anyone disagrees is a national security threat) and TikTok, which he says "remains less substantial"

Oof. Judge Nichols also seems to preclude potential issues with the government's remaining attempts to ban TikTok. "Plaintiff's IEEPA arguments are equally as applicable to [upcoming] prohibitions" as they are to the current app store ban argument. Doesn't look good for US govt

Here's my story from this morning on why this was a must-win case for TikTok in the US businessinsider.com/tiktok-court-b…

Thing I didn't realise until @BobbyAllyn pointed it out: Nichols was appointed by Trump

Another thing I don't think we knew (which was in the sealed documents and was one of the redacted chunks in the US government's argument, see right) until now was that TikTok's Singapore servers are operated by Alibaba (see left)