4 ms·
The Court did not say that the law is subject to strict scrutiny. The majority holds that they need not decide whether strict or intermediate scrutiny applies b
by granzymes 2y ago
The Court did not say that the law is subject to strict scrutiny. The majority holds that they need not decide whether strict or intermediate scrutiny applies because the law satisfies the more stringent test.
The concurrence by Judge Srinivasan would instead hold that the law is subject to only intermediate scrutiny and uphold the law on that basis.
Why do it this way? It takes away a potential avenue of appeal for TikTok. They can’t ask the Supreme Court to hold that the law is subject to strict scrutiny, because that issue wouldn’t help them overturn this ruling.
If you had forced the rest of the panel to choose, I think they would have landed on intermediate scrutiny.
- gpm 2y agoI'd guess that at least one of the panel members thought strict scrutiny applies. Otherwise I think they would have ruled both that intermediate scrutiny applies, and that even if it doesn't the law passes strict scrutiny.
- granzymes 2y agoThe only thing the Court says on the matter is: >There are reasonable bases to conclude that intermediate scrutiny is appropriate even under these circumstances. We need not, however, definitively decide that question because we conclude the Act “passes muster even under the more demanding standard.” It's possible that either Judge Ginsburg or Judge Rao think the strict scrutiny should apply, but if forced to put money on it I would say they both land on intermediate scrutiny.
- gpm 2y agoEh, all of pages 28, 29, 30, and 31 are dedicated to the question, they just choose not to come to a definite answer. It's not like they didn't think about it. Not to say that you couldn't be right, them both landing on intermediate scrutiny is just not how I read the tea leaves.