Gorsuch, J., concurring in judgment
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 Gorsuch, concurring in judgment.
We have had a fortnight to resolve, finally and on the merits, a major First Amendment dispute affecting more than 170 million Americans. Briefing finished on January 3, argument took place on January 10, and our opinions issue on January 17, 2025. Given those conditions, I can sketch out only a few, and admittedly tentative, observations.
First, the Court rightly refrains from endorsing the government’s asserted interest in preventing “the covert manipulation of content” as a justification for the law before us. Brief for Respondent 37. One man’s “covert content manipulation” is another’s “editorial discretion.” Journalists, publishers, and speakers of all kinds routinely make less-than-transparent judgments about what stories to tell and how to tell them. Without question, the First Amendment has much to say about the right to make those choices. It makes no difference that Americans (like TikTok Inc. and many of its users) may wish to make decisions about what
