Earlier this week, TikTok and its parent company, China-based ByteDance, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to pause the Jan. 19 deadline imposed by U.S. lawmakers in April that forces ByteDance to sell TikTok or face a ban.
TikTok’s CEO Shou Zi Chew was even seen at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, making his case to President-elect Donald Trump later that day.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court said it would hear the case, scheduling oral arguments for Jan. 10.
Related: ‘This Is Nuts’: TikTok Just Got Closer to Being Banned in the U.S — Here’s Why
TikTok had requested that the court hear the case by Jan. 6 to give the company time to “coordinate with their service providers to perform the complex task of shutting down the TikTok platform only in the United States” should the ban go through.
TikTok is arguing that a ban “violates the First Amendment.”
Earlier this week, when asked about the looming deadline, Trump said: “We’ll take a look at TikTok.”
“You know, I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok,” Trump added.
How Will a TikTok Ban Affect Small Businesses?
The app is used by around 170 million Americans, according to ByteDance.
In a court filing earlier in December, TikTok said that creators and small businesses in the U.S. could lose $1.3 billion in revenue and earnings in just one month should the ban go through. (TikTok broke it down as about $1 billion in business marketing and earnings of $300 million for people who create videos with the app.)
TikTok has also been embraced in pop culture, with CEO Chew serving as an honorary chair of the Met Gala at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Still, some people in Trump’s incoming administration, including Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio, have been the ban’s most vocal supporters.
“TikTok extended the Chinese Communist Party’s power and influence into our own nation, right under our noses,” Rubio said in a press release on his website in April.
In a filing Wednesday, Michael Fragoso, a lawyer for Republican Caucus Leader Senator Mitch McConnell, wrote, “This is a standard litigation play at the end of one administration, with a petitioner hoping that the next administration will provide a stay of execution.”
