Business

The justices are expected to rule quickly in the case.

Published

1 year ago

January 10, 2025

The justices are expected to rule quickly in the case.

When the Supreme Court hears arguments on Friday over whether protecting national security requires TikTok to be sold or closed, the justices will be working in the shadow of three First Amendment precedents, all influenced by the climate of their times and by how much the justices trusted the government.

During the Cold War and in the Vietnam era, the court refused to credit the government’s assertions that national security required limiting what newspapers could publish and what Americans could read. More recently, though, the court deferred to Congress’s judgment that combating terrorism justified making some kinds of speech a crime.

The court will most likely act quickly, as TikTok faces a Jan. 19 deadline under a law enacted in April by bipartisan majorities. The law’s sponsors said the app’s parent company, ByteDance, is controlled by China and could use it to harvest Americans’ private data and to spread covert disinformation.

The court’s decision will determine the fate of a powerful and pervasive cultural phenomenon that uses a sophisticated algorithm to feed a personalized array of short videos to its 170 million users in the United States. For many of them, and particularly younger ones, TikTok has become a leading source of information and entertainment.

As in earlier cases pitting national security against free speech, the core question for the justices is whether the government’s judgments about the threat TikTok is said to pose are sufficient to overcome the nation’s commitment to free speech.

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, told the justices that he “is second to none in his appreciation and protection of the First Amendment’s right to free speech.” But he urged them to uphold the law.

“The right to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment does not apply to a corporate agent of the Chinese Communist Party,” Mr. McConnell wrote.

Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said that stance reflected a fundamental misunderstanding.

“It is not the government’s role to tell us which ideas are worth listening to,” he said. “It’s not the government’s role to cleanse the marketplace of ideas or information that the government disagrees with.”

The Supreme Court’s last major decision in a clash between national security and free speech was in 2010, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. It concerned a law that made it a crime to provide even benign assistance in the form of speech to groups said to engage in terrorism.

One plaintiff, for instance, said he wanted to help the Kurdistan Workers’ Party find peaceful ways to protect the rights of Kurds in Turkey and to bring their claims to the attention of international bodies.

When the case was argued, Elena Kagan, then the U.S. solicitor general, said courts should defer to the government’s assessments of national security threats.

“The ability of Congress and of the executive branch to regulate the relationships between Americans and foreign governments or foreign organizations has long been acknowledged by this court,” she said. (She joined the court six months later.)

The court ruled for the government by a 6-to-3 vote, accepting its expertise even after ruling that the law was subject to strict scrutiny, the most demanding form of judicial review.

“The government, when seeking to prevent imminent harms in the context of international affairs and national security, is not required to conclusively link all the pieces in the puzzle before we grant weight to its empirical conclusions,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.

Elena Kagan was the U.S. solicitor general the last time a major decision in a clash between national security and free speech came up in a Supreme Court case, in 2010.Credit…Luke Sharrett/The New York Times

In its Supreme Court briefs defending the law banning TikTok, the Biden administration repeatedly cited the 2010 decision.

“Congress and the executive branch determined that ByteDance’s ownership and control of TikTok pose an unacceptable threat to national security because that relationship could permit a foreign adversary government to collect intelligence on and manipulate the content received by TikTok’s American users,” Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the U.S. solicitor general, wrote, “even if those harms had not yet materialized.”

Many federal laws, she added, limit foreign ownership of companies in sensitive fields, including broadcasting, banking, nuclear facilities, undersea cables, air carriers, dams and reservoirs.

While the court led by Chief Justice Roberts was willing to defer to the government, earlier courts were more skeptical. In 1965, during the Cold War, the court struck down a law requiring people who wanted to receive foreign mail that the government said was “communist political propaganda” to say so in writing.

That decision, Lamont v. Postmaster General, had several distinctive features. It was unanimous. It was the first time the court had ever held a federal law unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s free expression clauses.

It was the first Supreme Court opinion to feature the phrase “the marketplace of ideas.” And it was the first Supreme Court decision to recognize a constitutional right to receive information.

That last idea figures in the TikTok case. “When controversies have arisen,” a brief for users of the app said, “the court has protected Americans’ right to hear foreign-influenced ideas, allowing Congress at most to require labeling of the ideas’ origin.”

Indeed, a supporting brief from the Knight First Amendment Institute said, the law banning TikTok is far more aggressive than the one limiting access to communist propaganda. “While the law in Lamont burdened Americans’ access to specific speech from abroad,” the brief said, “the act prohibits it entirely.”

Zephyr Teachout, a law professor at Fordham, said that was the wrong analysis. “Imposing foreign ownership restrictions on communications platforms is several steps removed from free speech concerns,” she wrote in a brief supporting the government, “because the regulations are wholly concerned with the firms’ ownership, not the firms’ conduct, technology or content.”

Six years after the case on mailed propaganda, the Supreme Court again rejected the invocation of national security to justify limiting speech, ruling that the Nixon administration could not stop The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, a secret history of the Vietnam War. The court did so in the face of government warnings that publishing would imperil intelligence agents and peace talks.

“The word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment,” Justice Hugo Black wrote in a concurring opinion.

The American Civil Liberties Union told the justices that the law banning TikTok “is even more sweeping” than the prior restraint sought by the government in the Pentagon Papers case.

“The government has not merely forbidden particular communications or speakers on TikTok based on their content; it has banned an entire platform,” the brief said. “It is as though, in Pentagon Papers, the lower court had shut down The New York Times entirely.”

Mr. Jaffer of the Knight Institute said the key precedents point in differing directions.

“People say, well, the court routinely defers to the government in national security cases, and there is obviously some truth to that,” he said. “But in the sphere of First Amendment rights, the record is a lot more complicated.”

Related Topics:Donald J Featured Justice Department Supreme Court (US)TikTok (ByteDance)trump

Click to comment

Business

L.A.’s trailblazing home builder is the latest to leave California

Published

9 hours ago

April 14, 2026

Press Room

L.A.’s trailblazing home builder is the latest to leave California

One of Los Angeles’ most influential home builders, KB Home, is relocating its headquarters out of state, becoming the latest high-profile firm to do so.

The company, which has been based in Los Angeles since 1963 and helped build its sprawling suburbs, is moving its main office to the Phoenix metropolitan area by spring 2027, in part to reduce costs and place its employees in a more affordable housing market.

KB Home touted Arizona’s business-friendly environment as a reason for the move, but said it still plans to maintain six operating divisions in California.

The move to Arizona will help accelerate KB Home’s growth and streamline operations, Robert McGibney, president and chief executive of KB Home, said in a news release last week.

“This move brings our teams together in a more collaborative environment, and Phoenix is the right place to do it,” McGibney said.

The company has deep ties to California, with more than 100 projects and tens of thousands of homes across the state. KB Home has opened nine housing communities in Southern California in the last six months and plans to open 10 more by the end of 2026.

The company’s shares, which have been falling this year amid concern about the property market, have climbed around 1% since it made the announcement late Wednesday. They closed little changed Tuesday at $51.93.

KB Home got its start in Detroit in the 1950s and briefly shifted operations to Arizona before settling in California by 1963. The company, which gets its name from the last names of its founders, Donald Bruce Kaufman and Eli Broad, rode the boom and helped shape the growth of Southern California.

KB Home quickly emerged as one of the top builders of affordable homes in the country, starting in the post-World War II boom, when growing families across the country were leaving crowded cities for the promise of rapidly emerging suburban neighborhoods such as the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles.

With first-time buyers as their intended customers, the company’s innovations included lowering prices by building homes on slabs, instead of digging costly basements. It pioneered providing financing for buyers and 10-year limited warranties on their homes.

Broad became one of LA.’s most influential civic leaders, using his multibillion-dollar fortune, political clout and forceful personality to spur advancements in the public sphere, particularly in the arts.

Eli Broad stands inside the Broad, a contemporary art museum on Grand Avenue in Los Angeles, in 2015.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

He helped guide the redevelopment of Bunker Hill in downtown Los Angeles after it was cleared for urban renewal, and it was there that he built perhaps his greatest legacy: his namesake Broad Museum, which houses the extensive private contemporary art collection that he and his wife, Edythe, accumulated.

As a downtown booster, he and then-Mayor Richard Riordan were widely credited with getting the Walt Disney Concert Hall completed in 2003, raising more than $200 million to get the stalled Frank Gehry-designed project back on track.

In the late 1970s, he became the founding chairman of the Museum of Contemporary Art, and he bailed it out of a financial scandal three decades later with a $30-million grant.

KB Home’s California exit is the latest in a corporate exodus from the state. Some companies have relocated to avoid high taxes and strict regulations that complicate doing business in the state. The move has often been done to cut costs and improve profitability.

Two other California-bred companies connected to real estate, Realtor.com and Public Storage, announced similar moves to Texas in February.

Realtor.com, a real estate services company, was drawn to the Lone Star State for its unparalleled housing growth and affordable living, according to a news release. Public Storage, the largest self-storage business in the country, announced a similar move, citing interest in Texas’ growing talent and innovation.

The Golden State has remained the fourth-largest economy in the world, even as steep taxes and stringent environmental regulations push some firms to leave. Powerful companies across business sectors have expressed discontent with the state’s business environment.

Tesla and financial services firm Charles Schwab left the San Francisco Bay Area in 2021. Elon Musk’s SpaceX and X exited the state in 2024, along with Chevron, the oil giant that was started in California.

California has also lost residents, who are fleeing high housing costs for more affordable states such as Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Texas.

California has led the nation in net out-migration for six consecutive years, according to U-Haul data. Los Angeles County lost 54,000 residents from 2024 to 2025, partially due to continued out-migration to other states.

Business

How Waymo and Waze are pitching in to help solve L.A.’s pothole problem

Published

21 hours ago

April 14, 2026

Press Room

How Waymo and Waze are pitching in to help solve L.A.’s pothole problem

Waze and Waymo are teaming up to help combat Los Angeles’ growing pothole problem.

The companies announced a program that will use Waymo’s self-driving cars to better detect potholes in the city. The data will be available to city officials through Waze’s traffic data-sharing platform, according to a news release last week.

The number of potholes in L.A. jumped early this year after an intense rainy season soaked the city. Residents reported over 6,700 potholes in January and nearly 5,000 reports were submitted in February and again in March, according to data from the city’s 311 tip line analyzed by the nonprofit newsroom Crosstown L.A.

The partnership is the most recent effort in Waymo’s long-standing commitment to making roads safer, Arielle Fleisher, the company’s policy development and research manager, said in the release.

The Waze navigation app will also use the data to warn users as they approach a pothole, the company said.

Drivers will then be able to verify the Waymo-identified pothole in real time.

L.A. has been slow to repair pavement issues on its 23,000 miles of streets in recent years.

The city repaired 310 miles of road in fiscal year 2025, which ended in June — a nosedive from the 850 miles it paved a decade before in 2015, according to Crosstown. Only 216 miles of street lanes were paved in fiscal year 2024.

The Bureau of Street Services, the department in charge of paving the city’s streets, is in communication with Waymo regarding the pilot program, said Dan Halden, a spokesperson for the city department.

“The bureau proactively manages the city’s streets, ensuring roadways are treated not only for repair but also to strengthen the street network and prevent future potholes,” he said.

Many cities, including L.A., rely on residents to report potholes through the nonemergency 311 service. The process provides an incomplete picture of road health, according to Waymo and Waze.

The pilot program intends to fill in reporting gaps and was developed based on feedback from city officials.

“We want to build on the safety benefits of our service by partnering with organizations and city officials to help improve the infrastructure we all depend on,” Fleisher said

The pilot program is running in five cities, including San Francisco, and has already identified 500 potholes. The program is also underway in the metropolitan areas of Phoenix; Austin, Texas; and Atlanta.

The companies plan to expand into cities with colder weather, which can worsen the pothole problem.

“Working together helps our community and makes our roads better for everyone,” Andrew Stober, the strategic partner manager at Waze, said in the release.

Business

Hollywood stars line up against Paramount’s Warner Bros. acquisition

Published

1 day ago

April 13, 2026

Press Room

Hollywood stars line up against Paramount’s Warner Bros. acquisition

A constellation of stars are lining up against Paramount’s proposed takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, expressing fears the blockbuster merger would devastate the industry and shrink production jobs.

The letter was signed by nearly 1,000 artists and movie creators, including such big names as Ben Stiller, Bryan Cranston, Noah Wyle, Joaquin Phoenix, Kristen Stewart and Jane Fonda, whose Committee for the First Amendment helped organize the campaign.

“This transaction would further consolidate an already concentrated media landscape, reducing competition at a moment when our industries — and the audiences we serve — can least afford it,” according to the letter. “The result will be fewer opportunities for creators, fewer jobs across the production ecosystem, higher costs, and less choice for audiences in the United States and around the world.”

Paramount, in a statement, pushed back against the artists’ concerns. Tech scion David Ellison and his team believes the blockbuster deal makes sense — particularly because of turmoil in the entertainment business, the company said.

“This is also a moment when the industry has been facing significant disruption—and the need for strong, creative-first and well-capitalized companies that can continue to invest in storytelling has never been greater,” Paramount said.

The Hollywood workforce has shrunk by more than 42,000 jobs between 2022 and 2024, according to a recent study. The economy has not bounced back following shutdowns due to the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by the twin labor strikes three years ago.

Thousands of film workers have been searching for work — but many of the big opportunities have moved abroad.

The strikes prompted studio executives to reset their output after previously spending big to build streaming services to compete with Netflix.

Two other consolidations led to widespread cutbacks: Walt Disney Co.’s acquisition of Fox entertainment assets in 2019, and Discovery’s takeover of AT&T’s WarnerMedia four years ago.

The resulting entity — Warner Bros. Discovery, led by David Zaslav — instituted deep cost cuts and thousands of layoffs to cut expenses because the firm was nearly drowning in deal debt — $43 billion — from the day Zaslav took the helm.

Paramount’s proposed takeover of Warner Bros. would result in a significantly higher debt load, $79 billion in debt, prompting concerns from the group and others about further downsizing.

Ellison, the 43-year-old son of billionaire Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, is leading the effort to buy Warner Bros. Discovery to prop up Paramount, which the family acquired in August.

In late February, Ellison’s Paramount Skydance prevailed in a nearly six-month bidding war after Netflix unexpectedly bowed out when the elder Ellison agreed to financially back his son’s $111-billion deal.

“We have been clear in our commitments to do just that: increasing output to a minimum of 30 high-quality feature films annually with full theatrical releases, continuing to license content, and preserving iconic brands with independent creative leadership,” Paramount said, adding that such promises should ensure that “creators have more avenues for their work, not fewer.”

Warner shareholders will be asked to approve the merger April 23.

Ellison is pushing to wrap the deal up this summer.

“We are deeply concerned by indications of support for this merger that prioritize the interests of a small group of powerful stakeholders over the broader public good,” the letter said. “The integrity, independence, and diversity of our industry would be grievously compromised. Competition is essential for a healthy economy and a healthy democracy. So is thoughtful regulation and enforcement.”

The group urged California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and his fellow state attorneys general to sue to block the transaction.

Bonta has told The Times that his office is reviewing the transaction to see if it violates antitrust rules. Two historic movie studios, several streaming services and dozens of cable channels would be brought under one roof.

“Media consolidation has already weakened one of America’s most vital global industries,” the group said, “one that has long shaped culture and connected people around the world.”

Bonta’s office is leading the charge against another merger, TV station giant Nexstar Media Group’s $6.2-billion takeover of Virginia-based Tegna. Eight state attorneys general, including Bonta, have sued to block that deal. A judge is expected to rule on whether to issue a preliminary injunction later this week.