The Chinese government defends its decision to ban TikTok, citing it as a powerful tool.

In court on Friday, the Biden administration's lawyers emphasized that TikTok's Chinese ownership poses a significant threat to American users' national security.

Elizabeth Prelogar, the U.S. Solicitor General, highlighted potential dangers that China could exploit TikTok's app, such as manipulating its algorithm to favor specific content or compelling ByteDance to divulge extensive user data collected by TikTok on American citizens.

""ByteDance could be compelled by the PRC to provide any data it has on Americans, making it a powerful tool for the PRC," Prelogar stated."

She stated that TikTok's extensive data set could provide the PRC with a potent tool for harassment, recruitment, and espionage.

The oral arguments commenced at 10 a.m. and are currently being broadcast live.

During TikTok's oral arguments, the justices on the bench showed doubt about the company's main argument that the law infringes on free speech.

What is TikTok's speech in question? Justice Clarence Thomas posed this question in the opening moments of oral arguments, hinting at the court's uncertainty about whether the law constitutes a First Amendment violation.

TikTok's lawyer, Noel Francisco, argued on Friday that the case against TikTok is a violation of free speech protections under the First Amendment, as TikTok claims to be a U.S.-based corporation.

The government must prove a compelling interest and narrowly tailor any law that restricts First Amendment protections, which TikTok claims the law fails to achieve.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the divestiture law last month, even though it is a challenging legal test to satisfy in court. This means that justices could theoretically consider the case under strict scrutiny and still opt to uphold the law, despite the looming Jan. 19 ban.

The case currently being heard by the court is the first to focus on the ownership of a platform or app, rather than speech, as noted by Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Friday.

The liberal justice raised doubts about whether the court would classify TikTok's divestiture requirement as a data control matter rather than a free-speech issue, as TikTok's legal team has argued.

Acknowledging that weighing the case as a data control case would result in a lower level of scrutiny, Francisco agreed.

In oral arguments on Friday, Francisco argued that the U.S. government has no legitimate reason to prevent foreign propaganda and that the platform and its owners should be granted the highest level of free speech protection under the U.S. Constitution.

Francisco argued that TikTok should be granted First Amendment protections as it is a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary, according to him.

The lawyer representing TikTok was questioned about the Chinese government's influence on the app and ByteDance's control over the algorithm that displays specific content to users.

Francisco stated that although some parts of the recommendation engine are owned by the Chinese government, TikTok is still operating in the United States.

If justices do not intervene or ByteDance agrees to sell, TikTok will be banned from operating in the U.S. by January 19th. The focus of oral arguments is on the First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that speech by foreign governments or individuals does not receive full First Amendment protections.

The Biden administration contends that the law targets the company's control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content.

The administration's lawyers will argue that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech, based on viewpoint or content, and therefore fails to meet the criteria for free speech violations under the First Amendment.

The decision of the court could significantly affect the approximately 170 million individuals who utilize the app.

In December, the justices agreed to an expedited hearing and will have only nine days to make a ruling before the ban goes into effect on January 19.