Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance suggested that the U.S. Supreme Court, long seen as friendly to Donald Trump, might be ready to challenge him following a recent legal filing. In a post this weekend, Vance highlighted the unusual nature of Trump’s involvement in a case regarding a potential U.S. ban on TikTok, scheduled for January 19.
Trump, alongside other litigants, filed Amicus briefs with the Supreme Court last week. Vance pointed out that Trump’s brief stood out for its focus on his personal role rather than on legal arguments or the facts of the case. “It wasn’t about the law. Or even about the facts. Instead, it was about…Donald Trump,” Vance wrote.
The brief, filed by Trump’s legal team, emphasizes his significant presence on social media. “President Trump is one of the most powerful, prolific, and influential users of social media in history. Consistent with his commanding presence in this area, President Trump currently has 14.7 million followers on TikTok with whom he actively communicates, allowing him to evaluate TikTok’s importance as a unique medium for freedom of expression, including core political speech,” it reads.
The document also mentions that Trump and his rival used TikTok during the 2020 Presidential election campaign, with Trump being more effective in utilizing the platform to engage voters.
Vance also pointed out that Trump’s brief was prepared by John Sauer, a lawyer whom Trump nominated to be Solicitor General. She noted that Sauer’s description of Trump in the brief mirrored the kind of praise the former president often enjoys, reinforcing his preferred image. “He obsequiously described the president-elect in the glowing sort of terms Trump likes to see himself described with,” Vance remarked.
The case in question revolves around whether U.S. companies hosting TikTok will be able to continue doing so after the ban is enforced. However, Vance suggested that Trump’s involvement might not be entirely about the legalities of the situation.
“Apparently, Trump just wants to jump in and make a deal,” she wrote, raising concerns about potential underlying motives. Vance questioned if the Supreme Court would tolerate what she described as a “smidge of kleptocracy” in the situation, hinting that even the high court might find the request problematic.