Opinion of Sotomayor, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Nos. 24–656 and 24–657
TIKTOK INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS
24–656v.24–656
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BRIAN FIREBAUGH, ET AL., PETITIONERS
24–657v.24–657
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
ON APPLICATIONS FOR INJUNCTION PENDING REVIEW TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
[January 17, 2025]
Justice Sotomayor, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I join all but Part II.A of the Court’s per curiam opinion. I see no reason to assume without deciding that the Act implicates the First Amendment because our precedent leaves no doubt that it does.
TikTok engages in expressive activity by “compiling and curating” material on its platform. Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U. S. 707, 731 (2024). Laws that “impose a disproportionate burden” upon those engaged in expressive activity are subject to heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment. Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U. S. 697, 704 (1986); see Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U. S. 575, 581–585 (1983). The challenged Act plainly imposes such a burden: It bars any entity from distributing TikTok’s speech in the United States, unless TikTok undergoes a qualified divestiture. The Act, moreover, effectively prohibits TikTok from collab-
