i never said bytedance didn't i'm just saying the us (who passed that law) wouldn't, not directly. the us would just seize tiktok us's assets, and that only requires a search warrant, not a full bench or jury trial. (and in fact, the warrant could even be sealed from bytedance.)
so far, the only basis i've seen used to take action against tiktok on that seemed like it'd even pass constitutional muster is the national security argument and that one exception was only used to defend the passage of a law, not any lawsuit filed yet (if anyone would sue, it'd be bytedance)
probably, tho they've been proactive on other thornier issues to specifically reduce the need for appeals. can't remember it right off, but you could probably find it by searching the 2024 decisions in scotusblog.com
memorialized for the rest of eternity in my completely unorganized meme collection
noooo they upped the limit to 64 characters
🎵JSON derulo 🎶
or more accurately, if they don't elect to say it isn't. i was puzzled from day one of that ruling. i felt right away it'd invariably find its way back to scotus, and it appears my feeling may have been right: www.newsweek.com/donald-trump...
The newly released evidence in the election-fraud case will be hotly contested, a former federal prosecutor has said.
and it's that personal non-immunity that's why trump is unlikely to escape much of these charges. in fact, the prosecutors were able to amend their complaint to be not in terms of official acts for almost all of it iirc.