[Like millions of American teens, Kailey Corum is savvy about the dangers of TikTok — but she’s also wary about government efforts to shut it down. As a Virginia high school student, she uses the platform to catch up on news, listen to music, and discover cooking tips. She chooses her words carefully when describing whether she trusts the Supreme Court to decide the fate of an app that 17% of teenagers report using “almost constantly.”
The Virginia high school student uses the platform to catch up on news, listen to music and discover cooking tips. She chooses her words carefully when describing whether she trusts the Supreme Court to decide the fate of an app that 17% of teenagers report using “almost constantly.”
In the coming months, the Supreme Court will decide a series of blockbuster cases that could significantly transform the lives of the nation’s teenagers — potentially limiting access to vaping products, upholding a ban on transgender care for minors, and deciding whether the controversial TikTok law can be squared with the First Amendment.
The disputes are heating up even as there are signs that young people are especially disillusioned with Washington generally and the Supreme Court specifically. A Marquette Law School poll last week found the high court’s approval among Americans 18-29 stands at 44%, lower than any other age category.
The Supreme Court added to its “teenager term” last month by agreeing to hear arguments in the fast-moving challenge to the widely bipartisan TikTok ban President Joe Biden signed in April. The law followed years of concern that TikTok’s Chinese parent company poses a national security risk. It would allow TikTok to continue to operate in the US if its US-based subsidiary makes a clean break from Chinese ownership.
Pediatricians and other experts have for years warned about the potential harms of social media for teenagers, but it was national security — not social science — that ostensibly prompted Congress to approve the TikTok ban. Because of that, the questions now pending at the Supreme Court don’t deal with how young people interact with the app, even though they will be most affected by the court’s decision.
The ban is set to take effect January 19. The court, I don’t think, is thinking of this in terms of children,” said Leslie Y. Garfield Tenzer, a law professor at Pace University who focuses on social media.
The disconnect between the legal questions raised in the case and the potential impact on young people and their parents is a theme that runs through several of the major cases this term. A majority of the court’s justices signaled this month they are prepared to back a divisive Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for minors. Much of the argument on December 4 focused on whether courts should defer to state lawmakers in making those difficult choices. Far less time was spent on the transgender minors who have described the care as essential.
The court notably declined to consider a question about whether parents have a right to direct care for their children. A case pending about the Food and Drug Administration’s effort to yank vaping products from shelves, meanwhile, has less to do with the health risks for youth than with whether the agency followed the proper legal protocols when it stepped in to regulate the multibillion-dollar industry. Nineteen percent of high school students vaped in 2020, the FDA says, a far higher share than that of students who smoked.
At the center of both disputes are questions about whether state lawmakers and agencies overstepped when they enacted policies they say are necessary to protect young people. At least one conservative — Justice Clarence Thomas — appeared potentially persuaded by Tennessee’s argument that its transgender care ban applies to people based on age rather than sex and on their medical choices — a distinction that would make it easier for the state to defend the law in federal court.
So why isn’t this simply a case of age classification when it comes to these treatments as opposed to a ban? Thomas asked the attorney for the Biden administration. Texas is making similar arguments in a case the court is set to hear next month concerning a state law that requires age verification for sexually explicit websites. Opponents, including the porn industry, say the law violates the First Amendment by making it harder for adults to access adult content online. But supporters say the law is first and foremost about safeguarding minors.
Source link