Read the Supreme Court Ruling Against TikTok

2

TIKTOK INC. v. GARLAND

GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment

they say in concert with a foreign adversary. “Those who

won our independence” knew the vital importance of the

“freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think,” as

well as the dangers that come with repressing the free flow

of ideas. Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 375 (1927)

(Brandeis, J., concurring). They knew, too, that except in

the most extreme situations, “the fitting remedy for evil

counsels is good ones.” Ibid. Too often in recent years, the

government has sought to censor disfavored speech online,

as if the internet were somehow exempt from the full sweep

of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Murthy v. Missouri, 603

U. S. 43, 76–78 (2024) (ALITO, J., dissenting). But even as

times and technologies change, “the principle of the right to

free speech is always the same.” Abrams v. United States,

250 U. S. 616, 628 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

Second, I am pleased that the Court declines to consider

the classified evidence the government has submitted to us

but shielded from petitioners and their counsel. Ante, at 13,

n. 3. Efforts to inject secret evidence into judicial proceed-

ings present obvious constitutional concerns. Usually, “the

evidence used to prove the Government’s case must be dis-

closed to the individual so that he has an opportunity to

show that it is untrue.” Greene v. McElroy, 360 U. S. 474,

496 (1959). Maybe there is a way to handle classified evi-

dence that would afford a similar opportunity in cases like

these. Maybe, too, Congress or even the Standing Commit-

tee on Rules of Practice and Procedure would profit from

considering the question. Cf. United States v. Zubaydah,

595 U. S. 195, 245 (2022) (GORSUCH, J., dissenting). But as

the Court recognizes, we have no business considering the

government’s secret evidence here.

Third, I harbor serious reservations about whether the

law before us is “content neutral” and thus escapes “strict

scrutiny.” See ante, at 9-12; Brief for Petitioners in No. 24-

656, pp. 25–31; Brief for Petitioners in No. 24-657, pp. 24-

26; Reply Brief in No. 24–656, pp. 10–12; Reply Brief in No.