CNN
—
Like millions of American teens, Kylie Collum is well aware of the dangers of TikTok, but she’s also wary of the government’s efforts to shut it down.
High school students in Virginia use the platform to catch up on the news, listen to music, and find cooking tips. She chose her words carefully when explaining whether she trusted the Supreme Court to decide the fate of the app that 17% of teens report using “almost always.” .
“To be honest, I don’t totally believe it,” said Corum, a third-year student who stood outside the Supreme Court recently after touring the building with his classmates. “But there’s not much you can do personally.”
In the coming months, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on a series of major cases that could dramatically change the lives of American teens. It could limit access to e-cigarette products, uphold a ban on transgender care for minors and decide whether controversial TikTok laws can be enforced. Consistent with the First Amendment.
The appeal comes as lawmakers wage a fierce culture war over textbook bans, transgender student-athletes and American history education, sparking a flood of lawsuits. The lawsuit, which includes two children who are still teenagers, has already been filed in federal court.
The debate rages on despite signs that young people in particular are becoming disillusioned with Washington in general and the Supreme Court in particular. A Marquette Law School poll conducted last week found that Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 have less support for the high court than any other age group, at 44%.
“It feels like the biggest cases are the ones that directly concern the interests of children,” said Aaron Tan, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, who specializes in education law. “With so many state and local legislators advancing legislation with morality and young people in mind, I don’t think we should be surprised to see more and more cases directly involving young people.”
The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to hear arguments in a burgeoning challenge to the sweeping bipartisan TikTok ban that President Joe Biden signed in April, adding to its “teenage term.” The law comes after longstanding concerns that TikTok’s Chinese parent company poses a national security risk. If TikTok’s U.S.-based subsidiary is no longer owned by China, it would allow TikTok to continue operating in the United States.
Pediatricians and other experts have been warning about the potential harm social media can do to teens for years, but it’s not social science that ostensibly led Congress to approve a ban on TikTok. It was national security. As a result, the questions currently pending in the Supreme Court do not address how young people interact with apps, even though they are the people most affected by the court’s decision.
The ban is scheduled to take effect on January 19th.
“I don’t think the courts are thinking about this from the child’s perspective,” said Leslie Y. Garfield Tenser, a law professor at Pace University who focuses on social media.
“Everyone thinks TikTok is essential for teens and content creation, Ariana Grande did the ‘Wicked’ dance and everyone is copying it, but the ban… “The reason this is being done is not because of that type of content,” Tenzer said. . “Because of the fear that the People’s Republic of China could manipulate us.”
The disconnect between the legal issues raised in this case and the potential impact on young people and their parents is a common theme in several of this period’s major cases. A majority of the court’s justices signaled this month that they were willing to uphold a divisive Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for minors. Much of the debate on Dec. 4 focused on whether courts should defer to state legislatures when making these difficult choices. Far less time was spent on transgender minors, whose care they say is essential.
The court specifically declined to consider the question of whether parents have the right to directly care for their children.
Meanwhile, a pending lawsuit over the Food and Drug Administration’s efforts to pull e-cigarette products off shelves is less about the health risks to youth and more about the Food and Drug Administration’s appropriateness in regulating a multibillion-dollar industry. It has to do with whether legal procedures have been followed. . According to the FDA, 19% of high school students smoked e-cigarettes in 2020, which is much higher than the percentage of students who smoke.
Both debates center on the question of whether state legislatures and government agencies have gone too far in enacting policies they say are necessary to protect young people. At least one conservative, Justice Clarence Thomas, appears to have been potentially persuaded by Tennessee’s argument that the ban on transgender care applies to people based on age, not gender or medical choice. , this distinction would make it easier for states to defend their laws. Federal court.
“So why aren’t we talking about just age-classifying these treatments instead of banning them?” Thomas asked Biden administration lawyers.
Texas is making a similar argument in a case the court is scheduled to hear next month over a state law requiring age verification on sexually explicit websites. Opponents, including those in the porn industry, argue that the law violates the First Amendment by making it harder for adults to access adult content online. But supporters say the law is aimed first and foremost at protecting minors.
“The state of Texas seeks to protect children from the most obscene sexual content imaginable,” state attorneys said in court papers. “Texas only addresses porn-only websites, allows them to comply by using common age verification technology, and imposes no criminal penalties. These modest but important laws are… It satisfies all levels of scrutiny.”
Because of the way lawsuits pass through the federal judiciary, the Supreme Court has limitations on the framework for lawsuits and who can hear them. The justices denied another appeal by transgender minors and their families affected by Tennessee’s ban, but the court allowed their attorneys to make arguments earlier this month.
Still, experts say that currently pending cases affecting teenagers are only of secondary concern to young people.
“The court does not directly assess what it thinks is in the best interest of the young person,” Tan said. “The court is evaluating whether state legislators, or in the case of e-cigarettes, the FDA, were correct in determining what was in the best interest of young people.”
This raises concerns that some of the most contentious battles in Congress and statehouses across the country are more about politics than protecting minors. They are concerned about advocates who work with young people. A Gallup Walton Family Foundation poll conducted earlier this year found that 44% of Gen Zers of voting age say they have “little” confidence in the Supreme Court, while 20% have “a lot” or “a lot” of confidence in the Supreme Court. Trust in the courtroom.
“What we’re hearing from them is growing distrust and growing disillusionment with government institutions,” said Diana Tou Thao Rose, vice president of Advocates for Youth, a reproductive and sexual rights organization. said.
“The impact is directly on young people, but we are not necessarily listening to their voices,” she said.
Spencer Rahim, also a high school senior in Virginia, said most of the teenagers he knows have found ways to work around the concerns many have about TikTok. For example, some people simply avoid posting personal content.
“For me, it’s not that big of a concern,” he said.
But Rahim is less certain how judges will approach the issue.
“They need to listen to people a little more,” he said.
