The Supreme Court appears ready to uphold a law banning TikTok in the United States over national security concerns unless its China-based parent company sells the platform before the January 19 deadline.

The court’s nine justices heard from lawyers representing TikTok and its content creators that a ban would be a violation of free speech protections for the platform’s more than 170 million users in the United States.

Without a sale, China could use TikTok as a tool for espionage and political manipulation, the US government said.

A decision must be made by the Supreme Court within days. President-elect Donald Trump — who returns to the White House in just over a week — is now arguing against the ban.

TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, is required by law to sell it in the United States or cease operations on January 19. The company said it will not sell the short video platform.

Congress passed the law with bipartisan support — a moment that represents the culmination of years of concern about the widely popular platform, known for its viral videos and appeal among young people.

The legislation does not prevent the use of the application, but it will require technology giants such as Apple and Google to stop offering it and prevent updates, which analysts indicate will eliminate it over time.

TikTok has repeatedly denied any potential Chinese Communist Party influence and said the law violates its users’ First Amendment free speech rights.

Noel Francisco, a former US attorney general who appeared on the platform, stressed that a ban on Americans’ most popular expression platform could also open the door to a dangerous form of censorship.

“The government cannot restrict freedom of expression in order to protect us from freedom of expression,” he said.

“And that is exactly what this law does from beginning to end.”

A representative for platform creators said they should be free to use the publisher of their choice.

Jeffrey L. Fisher, a Stanford law professor who represents the creators who sued, told the court on Friday that the country has historically faced “ideological campaigns by foreign adversaries.”

But he said that under the First Amendment, mere thoughts do not constitute a threat to national security.

Justice Department lawyer Elizabeth P. Prelogar told the court that ByteDance’s ties to the Chinese government make it a national security risk.

She told the court that Beijing “could use TikTok as a weapon at any time to harm the United States.”

During nearly three hours of arguments, the nine justices repeatedly returned to the national security concerns that gave rise to the law in the first place, while also probing questions of free speech.

“Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate parent is actually subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?” Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts asked TikTok’s lawyer, Mr. Francisco.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh looked into concerns raised by the US government about what data the app collects on its users and how that data is used.

He added that the risks appear to be a “major concern for the future of the country.”

In December, US President-elect Donald Trump She asked the court to postpone its decision So that he can return to the White House so that he can search for a “political solution” to resolve the issues at hand.

TikTok’s lawyer told the court on Friday that he believed the platform would “remain closed” on January 19 without intervention.

Ms Prelogar, defending the US Department of Justice, said “nothing permanent” should happen on that day, and there was still time for the sale.

She said forcing the app to go dark might be just the “shock” that ByteDance needs to seriously consider selling.

“This will fundamentally change the landscape in terms of what ByteDance might think,” she said, comparing the situation to a “game of chicken” in which the United States should not “blink first.”

After the hearing, legal observers expected the Supreme Court justices to appear influenced by the government’s concerns.

“Traditionally, the Supreme Court has been willing to defer to some extent when national security is at stake,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

He added: “I expect the judges to side with the government by a majority.”

It’s still difficult to predict how the court will rule, said Jacob Huebert, an attorney and president of the Liberty Justice Center — which represents BASED Politics, an online content creation company.

But he says the ban violates the freedom of speech of millions of Americans — a point he believes TikTok’s lawyers have already made.

“It’s not about China’s rights or the Communist Party’s rights,” he said. “It’s largely about the rights of Americans who use TikTok to talk to other Americans.”

More than a hundred people braved the freezing conditions in Washington, D.C., to attend the session in person.

Chloe Joy Sexton — one of the TikTok creators named in the lawsuit — said the platform has brought “financial independence” to many creators, including many mothers.

“Banning TikTok will put these women, myself included, in real financial jeopardy,” she told reporters. “It will destroy my business and the community that means so much to me.”

Danielle Ballesteros, a student at the University of California, San Diego, said she had been waiting outside the court since 06:30 local time.

“I feel like TikTok doesn’t deserve to be banned,” she told the BBC.

While she admitted to using it “maybe too much,” she said she believes the app is an important news source for her generation.

TikTok has already been banned on government devices in several countries, including the UK. It faces a more comprehensive ban in some countries, including India.

Last December, A A three-judge appeals court decision upheld the lawPointing to China’s record of working through private companies, he said the action was justified as “part of a broader effort to confront the well-substantiated national security threat posed” by the country.