Here is some of the legal news making the headlines this week:

TikTok filed a lawsuit challenging the federal law that requires its Chinese parent company to sell the social media platform.

  • Last month, Congress passed a bill, which President Joe Biden signed into law, that requires ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, to sell the social media site to a U.S. buyer by January 2025 or the platform will be banned in the United States.
  • On Tuesday, TikTok brought a lawsuit challenging that law, arguing that it violates the First Amendment by “silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere.” The lawsuit reads, “For the first time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban, and bars every American from participating in a unique online community with more than 1 billion people worldwide.”  
  • TikTok also argues it cannot comply with the mandate that it be sold before the January 2025 deadline. The lawsuit continues, “The ‘qualified divestiture’ demanded by the Act to allow TikTok to continue operating in the United States is simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally…There is no question: the Act will force a shutdown of TikTok by January 19, 2025.” 

A federal judge in Florida indefinitely postponed former President Donald Trump’s trial in the classified documents prosecution brought by special counsel Jack Smith.

  • The trial was originally scheduled to start on May 20, but U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon issued an order vacating the trial date and scheduling a number of hearings and pre-trial deadlines.
  • Trump’s attorneys have sought to delay the proceedings at every turn. At a hearing in March, Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche said the trial should be pushed back until at least after the November presidential election. Blanche said, “A trial that takes place before the election is a mistake and should not happen. You’re talking about taking Mr. Trump off the campaign trail for blocks of time for really no reason.” Smith’s team, however, has sought to move forward as quickly as the judge would allow. Smith invoked the Speedy Trial Act by arguing that the public, in addition to a criminal defendant, has a right to prompt resolution of a criminal case.
  • In her order, Cannon wrote, “Finalization of a trial date at this juncture—before resolution of the myriad and interconnected pre-trial and CIPA issues remaining and forthcoming—would be imprudent and inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider the various pending pre-trial motions before the Court, critical CIPA issues, and additional pretrial and trial preparations necessary to present this case to a jury.” Addressing the Speedy Trial Act concerns, Cannon continued, “The ends of justice served by this continuance…outweigh the best interest of the public and Defendants in a speedy trial.”