Washington — The fate of TikTok remains unknown after making their final arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States.

The nine justices divided over the constitutionality of a ban on the TikTok application. This all came about after congress passed a bill that would force TikTok to divest to an American-owned company. Congress alleges the app which is owned by a Chinese-owned company, ByteDance, could be stealing information from nearly 170 million users on the application.

ByteDance controls the applications algorithm and recommendation search engine, something TikTok values, but the government says it poses a risk.

The bill, which was packaged with aid to Ukraine, forces the app to be banned on January 19th, 2025 if not sold. While the Supreme Court could rule otherwise and the app could stay.

TikTok, its parent company ByteDance and 8 creators suing have claimed that the ban is an infringement on users first amendment rights to freedom of speech.

Both parties grilled as the arguments went on for more than two hours on Friday.

TikTok’s attorney, Noel Francisco, claimed congress believed the app could influence Americans. Which he said is a pillar of the first amendment right is that the government cannot restrict speech to protect speech.

Jeffery Fisher, the lawyer representing the 8 creators, said the ban would limit his clients’ rights to participate in a “modern public square.”

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued back that the application poses a “national security threat” and the court should uphold the law.

Some justices appeared to side with the government as Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Elena Kagan shared skepticism on how a removal of ByteDance’s ownership would affect America’s first amendment rights. Justice Kagan added that the company has no rights as it is a foreign entity.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh contended that congress’s belief that the application poses a national security risk is a huge concern.

Justice Elena Kagan pressed Prelogar on the meaning and usage of “covert.” Justice Kagan said that all social media companies have “a little bit of a black box” when it comes to why certain content displays at certain times. Fisher and Francisco argued that it would have been easier if congress had stopped, what the governments says is China from “covert[ly]” influencing Americans, then plainly just banning the app.

President-Elect Donald Trump has changed his opinion from his first administration, and wants TikTok to stay. He has asked the court, in briefs, to block the ban and allow his administration to work something out. Trump goes into office on January 20th and the ban begins on January 19th.

Multiple investors including Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary and billionaire Frank McCourt have exclaimed interest in buying the app, while TikTok has held back on selling.

The app says if it sells, the algorithm will not be sold with it. O’Leary says he’s fine with that.

Until the Supreme Court releases its opinion the ban of the application remain in limbo.