Va., Institute for Family Studies Oppose Injunction to Block Mont. TikTok Ban

Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares (R) and the Institute for Family Studies seek leave to file amicus briefs opposing a preliminary injunction to block Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R) from enforcing SB-419, the state’s TikTok ban, when it takes effect Jan. 1 (see 2307070002), said their separate motions Friday (docket 9:23-cv-00061) in U.S. District Court for Montana in Missoula. Both motions are unopposed, they said.

Supporters of the injunction contend B-419 abounds with “constitutional defects.” In addition to breaching the First Amendment, SB-419 violates the Foreign Affairs Doctrine and Commerce Clause, they say. AB-419 also is preempted by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and Section 721 of the Defense Production Act, they say. Those statutes authorize the president and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., not the states, “to address putative national security risks posed by foreign economic actors,” they say.

But Virginia represents a group of states with “a compelling interest” in the case, said its motion for leave, without identifying the other states participating in the amicus brief. The plaintiffs in the consolidated cases seek to enjoin a “sister” state’s “exercise of its historic police power of protecting its citizens from deceptive and harmful business practices,” it said. The court already has permitted four amici to file amicus briefs in support of the injunction, and it should “similarly grant” the amici states’ motion to file a brief in opposition, it said.

Consumer protection laws traditionally fall within a state’s police powers to safeguard its own citizens, said Virginia’s motion. SB-419 “fits comfortably within this tradition,” it said.

If the court were to enjoin SB-419, its decision “could be felt beyond the particular facts of this case” and threaten “similar exercises of police power” by the amici states “within their own borders,” said Virginia’s brief. The amici states “have a strong interest in ensuring that their historic police powers are not undermined,” it said. SB-419's “balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of Montana,” it said.

The Institute for Family Studies “encourages state legislators to consider the wealth of evidence that social media, and especially TikTok, are harmful for American youth,” said its motion for leave. The institute believes SB-419 “is the best way to protect Montana’s children from the harm TikTok poses,” it said.

Even as smartphone use and the negative effects of social media “increased several times over” when Facebook bought Instagram, “so too has TikTok taken the digital lives of American youths into unprecedented territory,” said the institute’s motion. TikTok, “though only a relatively recent entrant” into the U.S. social media market, “presents a particular danger for America’s youth,” it said.

The institute supports SB-419 “without reservation,” said its motion. Social media companies “failed to protect underaged users,” it said. TikTok “is particularly dangerous for their mental health due to its addictive qualities and intention to radicalize users and creators,” it said. “Ultimately, content is much less controllable and trustworthy on TikTok than on any other social media platform,” it said. The institute’s research work “has led us to the conclusion that having access to TikTok is bad for America’s teens,” it said.