when he takes office next month. The appeals court in its majority opinion Friday found that the U.S. government had “offered persuasive evidence demonstrating that” the divestment law “is narrowly tailored to protect national security.” The opinion noted that TikTok “never squarely denies that it has ever manipulated content at the direction of the” People’s Republic of China. “On the merits, we reject each of the petitioners’ constitutional claims,” wrote Judge Douglas Ginsburg in the opinion. “As we shall explain, the parts of the Act that are properly before this court do not contravene the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, nor do they violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws; constitute an unlawful bill of attainder ... or work an uncompensated taking of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment,” the opinion said. Ginsburg noted that the law was the result of “extensive, bipartisan action by the Congress and by successive presidents.” “It was carefully crafted to deal only with control by a foreign adversary, and it was part of a broader effort to counter a well substantiated national security threat posed by the PRC,” the judge wrote. In a statement on the ruling posted on X, TikTok said, “The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue.” “Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people,” the company said. “The TikTok ban, unless stopped, will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025.” Read more CNBC politics