A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a law that could lead on to a ban on TikTok in only a number of months, handing the favored social media platform a convincing defeat in its fight for survival within the United States

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected TikTok's request to overturn the law – which requires TikTok to chop ties with its China-based parent company ByteDance or be banned by mid-January – and dismissed the law's challenge company back. which it argued violated the First Amendment.

“The First Amendment is designed to protect free speech in the United States,” said the court’s opinion, written by Justice Douglas Ginsburg. “Here, the government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to collect data about people in the United States.”

TikTok and ByteDance – one other plaintiff within the lawsuit – are expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, President-elect Donald Trump, who tried to ban TikTok in his first term and whose Justice Department would need to implement the law, said through the presidential campaign that he now opposes a TikTok ban and is committed to “saving” the social Network will use media platform.

Friday's ruling got here after the appeals court, made up of two Republican-appointed judges and one Democratic-appointed judge, heard oral arguments in September. The three judges all rejected TikTok's petition. Justice Sri Srinivasan, the court's chief justice appointed by former President Barack Obama, delivered a concurring opinion.

The law, signed by President Joe Biden in April, was the culmination of a years-long saga in Washington over the short-video sharing app that the federal government sees as a threat to national security due to its ties to China.

The US has said it is anxious that TikTok is collecting vast amounts of user data, including sensitive details about viewing habits, which could find yourself within the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. Officials have also warned that the proprietary algorithm that drives what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to change content on the platform in ways which might be difficult to detect — a priority also expressed by the European Union on Friday because it investigates the video-sharing app's role in Romania's elections.

However, a significant slice of the federal government's information on this case was redacted and hidden from the general public and the 2 corporations.

TikTok, which sued the federal government in May over the law, has long denied that it might be utilized by Beijing to spy or manipulate Americans. Its lawyers have appropriately identified that the U.S. has not provided evidence that the corporate shared user data with the Chinese government or manipulated content within the U.S. to learn Beijing. The Justice Department emphasized that it was citing, partly, unspecified actions that the Both corporations have allegedly taken motion up to now following demands from the Chinese government.

After the hearing in September, some legal experts had said it might be obscure the ultimate decision on how the three justices would rule.

In a court hearing that lasted greater than two hours, the panel appeared to grapple with the query of how TikTok's foreign ownership affects rights under the Constitution and the way far the federal government could go to curb potential foreign influence on a foreign-owned platform restrict.

The justices pressed Daniel Tenny, a Justice Department attorney, on the impact the case could have on the First Amendment. But in addition they expressed some skepticism about TikTok's arguments, questioning the corporate's lawyer – Andrew Pincus – whether any First Amendment rights prevent the federal government from curtailing a strong company that’s subject to the laws and influence of a foreign one opponent.

In portions of their questions on TikTok's ownership, the justices pointed to wartime precedent that permits the U.S. to limit foreign ownership of broadcast licenses and asked whether the arguments made by TikTok would apply if the U.S. were involved in a war.

To allay concerns in regards to the company's owners, TikTok says it has invested greater than $2 billion to enhance protections for U.S. user data.

The company also argues that the administration's broader concerns might have been addressed in a draft contract it presented to the Biden administration during talks between the 2 sides greater than two years ago. She accuses the federal government of refraining from further negotiations on the agreement, which the Justice Ministry believes is insufficient.

Lawyers for the 2 corporations claimed that it was inconceivable to sell the platform commercially and technologically. They also say any sale of TikTok without its coveted algorithm — the platform's secret sauce that Chinese authorities would likely block as a part of a divestment plan — would turn the U.S. version of TikTok into an island separate from other global content .

This week, a spokesman for McCourt's Project Liberty initiative, which goals to guard online privacy, said unnamed participants in its offering had made informal commitments of greater than $20 billion in capital would have.

TikTok's lawsuit was consolidated by a second lawsuit brought by several content creators — for which the corporate is covering legal costs — in addition to a 3rd lawsuit on behalf of conservative creators working with a nonprofit called BASED Politics Inc.

If TikTok appeals and the courts proceed to uphold the law, it would be as much as Trump's Justice Department to implement it and punish potential violations with fines. The penalties would apply to app stores that might be banned from offering TikTok and web hosting services that might be banned from supporting it.

Originally published: December 6, 2024 at 8:43 am PST

Louisiana is not any stranger to controversy over religion in schools. In 2023, it joined almost 20 states The require or allow Officials in public schools to display the national motto “In God We Trust.”

Now the Bayou State could possibly be the primary state within the country to require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in classrooms at public schools, colleges and universities.

The legislature agreed Bill No. 71 on May 28, 2024, although Governor Jeff Landry has not yet signed it into law. The bill would require officials in public schools, including colleges and universities, to display a selected version of the Ten Commandments. The text is comparable to the King James translation of the Bible is utilized in many Protestant churches.

Officials must publish a context statement highlighting the role of the Ten Commandments in American history and can also display the Mayflower Treaty of the Pilgrimsthe Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787a federal law to settle the frontier – and the primary congressional document to encourage the establishment of colleges.

One of the bill’s sponsors, State Senator J. Adam Bass, defended it, saying: its “purpose isn’t exclusively religious.” He told his colleagues in Parliament that the Ten Commandments were important because of their “historical significance, as they are only one among many documents that represent the history of our country and the foundations of our legal system.”

As someone who teaches and researches religious and academic lawI feel the bill is problematic. It is prone to end in litigation at a time when the Supreme Court's views on religion and government are changing.

As the Supreme Court has previously ruled

Legal disputes over the Ten Commandments are nothing latest. More than 40 years ago, in Stone vs GrahamThe Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky state law that required the Ten Commandments to be displayed in classrooms.

The court justified this by stating that the underlying law the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment – “Congress shall make no law establishing a State religion” – since the mandate lacked a secular purpose.

A small note on posters describing the Ten Commandments as “the fundamental legal code of Western civilization and the common law of the United States” didn’t persuade the judges.

Twenty-five years later, the Supreme Court again considered cases involving the general public display of the Ten Commandments, but not in schools. This time, the justices reached mixed conclusions.

The first case occurred in Kentucky, where officials within the district courthouse put up a display board with texts corresponding to the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence and a Bible quote. In a 2005 ruling in McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of KentuckyThe five-member majority agreed that the posting of the Ten Commandments violated the Establishment Clause, primarily since it lacked a secular legislative purpose.

On the identical day, nonetheless, the Supreme Court got here to the alternative conclusion in Van Orden vs Perrya case from Texas. The court upheld the constitutionality of a display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the State Capitol as one among 17 monuments and 21 historical markers commemorating Texas history.

Unlike the relatively latest exhibit in Kentucky, the one in Texas, which has existed for the reason that early Sixties, was built with private funds. The court allowed the Ten Commandments to stay because, despite their religious significance, the monument was a more passive display than the one in Stone: it covered 22 acres and was not attached to the courthouse door.

Louisiana law

Louisiana's bill would require public school officials to hold framed copies of the Ten Commandments in all public school classrooms. The posters have to be not less than 11 by 14 inches and printed in a big, easy-to-read font. The proposal allows officials to buy these posters using state funds, but doesn’t require it. The posters will also be purchased as a donation or with donor funds.

The bill's writer, state Rep. Dodie Horton, previously sponsored a Louisiana law that might require public school classrooms to display an indication reading “In God We Trust.”

In her defense of the Ten Commandments proposal, she said that honors the country's religious origins.

“The Ten Commandments are the basis of all laws in Louisiana,” she said told his MPs“And given all the crap our children are exposed to in classrooms today, it is imperative that we restore the Ten Commandments to a prominent position.”

In justifying the bill, Horton referred to Kennedy v. Bremerton School Districta 2022 Supreme Court decision by which the justices ruled that education officials couldn’t prevent a football coach from praying on the sphere at the top of games because he was engaging in a private religious practice protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

“The landscape has changed,” she said.

New border

This is indeed the case.

For a long time, the Supreme Court used a set of criteria that were also known as the Lemon vs. Kurtzman test to find out whether a government motion violates the Establishment Clause. Under this test, a government motion or policy that conflicts with religion must meet three criteria. A policy will need to have a secular legislative purpose; its primary or principal effect must not promote religion; and it must not end in excessive entanglements between government and spiritual officials.

Another test that the Supreme Court has sometimes applied comes from Lynch vs Donnelly In 1984, it declared invalid government measures that appeared to support religions.

However, the vast majority of the present Court has abandoned each the Lemon and Endorsement tests. In the bulk opinion in Kennedy v. Bremerton, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that “the Establishment Clause have to be interpreted by “referring to historical practices and understandings.'” He added that the court “abandoned Lemon and its endorsement test offshoot way back.”

What this latest standard means stays to be seen.

In my opinion, the supporters of the bill Trust in Kennedy is incorrect. This decision affirmed voluntary, private prayer, not the mandatory posting of spiritual statements, and in doing so ignored the beliefs of many students.

More than 80 years ago, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that students can’t be forced to take part in the salute to the American flag, including the words “under God” within the Pledge of Allegiance, if it violates their religious beliefs.

Under the brand new Louisiana law, students aren’t any longer required to recite the Ten Commandments. But given their clearly religious message, I imagine Bill No. 71 faces a dubious future if it comes into force.

politics

Vermont is the primary state to pass a law requiring fossil fuel firms to pay a portion of the damages brought on by climate change after the state catastrophic floods in summer and damage brought on by other weather extremes.

Republican Gov. Phil Scott allowed the bill to turn out to be law without his signature, saying he was concerned in regards to the costs and consequences the small state would face if it needed to tackle the oil industry by itself.

“Instead of coordinating with other states like New York and California, which have far more resources, Vermont – one of the least populated states with the lowest GDP in the country – has chosen to cover the costs associated with climate change on its own,” Scott wrote in a letter to lawmakers. But he said he understood the need to hunt funds to mitigate the damage brought on by climate change, which has harmed Vermont “in so many ways.”

The floods last July Torrential rains flooded Vermont's capital city of Montpelier, the nearby city of Barre and a number of other southern Vermont communities, destroying homes and washing away roads across the agricultural state. Some called it the state's worst natural disaster since a 1927 flood that killed dozens of individuals and caused widespread destruction. It took months for businesses – from restaurants to shops – to rebuild, losing their summer and even fall seasons. Some have only recently reopened, while dozens of house owners have needed to enter the cold season with flood-ravaged homes.

Under the bill, the Vermont State Treasurer, in consultation with the Natural Resources Agency, would submit a report by January 15, 2026, on the whole costs to Vermonters and the state of emitting greenhouse gases from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2024. The assessment would examine impacts on public health, natural resources, agriculture, economic development, housing, and other areas. The state would use federal data to find out the quantity of covered greenhouse gas emissions attributed to a fossil fuel company.

It is a polluter-pays model that affects firms that extract fossil fuels or refine crude oil in trade or business and are liable for multiple billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions in the course of the period in query. The funds might be utilized by the state to do things like upgrade stormwater drainage systems; upgrade roads, bridges and railroads; relocate, raise or upgrade wastewater treatment plants; and insulate private and non-private buildings to be more energy efficient. The model is modeled after the federal Superfund pollution cleanup program.

“For too long, giant fossil fuel companies have knowingly fanned the flames of climate change without taking action to put it out,” Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, said in a press release. “Finally, perhaps for the first time ever, Vermont will hold the companies most responsible for climate-related floods, fires and heat waves financially accountable for a fair share of the damage they cause.”

Maryland, Massachusetts and New York are considering similar measures.

The American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry's foremost lobbying organization, expressed extreme concern that the law “retroactively imposes costs and liability for past activities that were legal, and that it violates equal treatment and due process principles by holding corporations responsible for the actions of society as a whole. Moreover, it is overridden by federal law.” In a letter to lawmakers before the law took effect, it also said that the measure didn’t inform potentially affected firms of the quantity of the potential fees.

Vermont lawmakers are aware that the state faces legal challenges, however the governor worries in regards to the costs and what a Vermont failure would mean for other states.

Democratic state Rep. Martin LaLonde, an attorney, believes Vermont has good legal arguments. Lawmakers worked closely with many legal scholars to draft the bill, he said in a press release.

“The bottom line is that the stakes are too high for the citizens of Vermont – and the costs are too high – to absolve the companies that caused the mess from their obligation to help clean up the damage,” he said.