The Supreme Court will deliberate on the TikTok ban on Friday, examining national security and free speech concerns.

On Friday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments regarding a US law that mandates TikTok to either separate from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be prohibited from operating in the US. This closely watched case involves a clash between national security concerns and the free speech rights of millions of Americans.

In December, the court decided to hold an expedited hearing on the TikTok case, giving it only nine days to determine whether to uphold the request to halt or delay the ban passed by Congress before it becomes effective on January 19.

The court is unlikely to take that long, and justices are expected to issue a ruling or order in a matter of days.

With an estimated 170 million users nationwide, TikTok remains one of the most popular social media apps in the U.S.

The app has gained more attention due to President-elect Trump's support, which has been highlighted in the media in the lead-up to his inauguration.

Before the oral arguments on Friday, here's what you need to know about the arguments and how the Supreme Court may decide.

TikTok arguments, alleged free speech violations

ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, is requesting the court to either halt or postpone the implementation of a law that was passed by Congress with bipartisan support in April.

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act gave TikTok nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company or be removed from U.S. app stores and hosting services. Despite repeated statements from its owners that they will not do so, the act also grants the president a 90-day window to delay the ban if TikTok says a divestiture is in progress.

In May, several TikTok, ByteDance, and users of the app filed a lawsuit to lift the ban, claiming that the legislation would infringe on the free speech of the millions of Americans who utilize the platform.

TikTok's lawyers contended that the law infringes on First Amendment rights, characterizing it as an unprecedented effort to target specific individuals and prevent them from operating a major platform for free speech in the United States. They also pointed out that lawmakers did not explore less drastic options before opting for an outright ban.

In a reply brief filed last month to the high court, attorneys argued that even when national security is at risk, speech bans should be a last resort and not the responsibility of Congress.

National security concerns

The U.S. Congress has raised concerns that TikTok, a Chinese-owned app, could be used to collect user data and spread Chinese government-backed content, leading to the app's divestiture order last spring.

The Biden administration shared the same concerns as the U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who pointed out in a Supreme Court brief that the law only focuses on China's control of the app, which the administration argued could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans, rather than its content.

Beijing could secretly use the platform to further its geopolitical goals in the U.S. or exploit the large amount of user data it has collected for either espionage or extortion, Prelogar stated.

The administration's lawyers will argue on Friday that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech and that the First Amendment was not violated since there were no restrictions based on viewpoint or content.

The Biden administration filed confidential evidence to the court to bolster its argument that TikTok, owned by ByteDance, should be banned.

That evidence has not been released to the public.

Political pressures

The Supreme Court has expedited the case, with President-elect Trump indicating his backing for the app in recent months.

In December, Shou Zi Chew, the CEO of TikTok, was hosted by Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort. During a press conference, Trump announced that his incoming administration would review TikTok and the ongoing divestiture case.

Trump expressed his fondness for TikTok, stating that he has a special place in his heart for the app.

The president-elect's legal team filed a brief with the Supreme Court requesting a delay in the case's decision until after his inauguration on January 20.

The brief did not signal how Trump might act.

TikTok's attorneys have argued in Supreme Court filings that their relationship with the incoming administration justifies an interim injunction to allow the President-elect and his advisors to determine their position on saving TikTok.

The public has a strong interest in this Court exercising plenary review.

Congress has seen a surge of support from some lawmakers for the case.

The trio of senators and a congressman filed a brief on Thursday, urging the Supreme Court to overturn the ban, stating that they lack sufficient evidence to outweigh the free speech protections granted under the First Amendment.

Lawmakers argued that banning TikTok due to "speculative concerns" about foreign interference is "unconstitutional and contradicts fundamental American values," citing examples from the Sedition Acts of the 18th and 20th centuries and Cold War-era free speech restrictions. They also referenced the nation's longtime reliance on national security claims as a means of justifying censorship.

The U.S. could adopt less drastic measures to address data security concerns posed by the app without infringing on First Amendment rights.

Others remained deeply opposed.

TikTok's arguments were deemed "unmeritless and unsound" by Sen. Mitch McConnell in a filing, who pointed out that Congress had explicitly set the Jan. 19 date for the divestiture clause to take effect, thereby removing any political uncertainty in the execution of the law by limiting it to an administration that was deeply supportive of the bill's goals.