The Justice Department argues a TikTok employee’s fear that executive orders banning transactions with Beijing-based parent BiteDance will prevent him from paying, not enough to warrant a temporary sanctions order that the Commerce Department enforces it Will stop doing.
President Donald Trump issued an order on August 6, which would prohibit “any transaction by anyone” with ByteDance or any of its subsidiaries. On August 24, Tiktok filed suit, arguing its due process and First Amendment rights were violated. On the same day, a technical program manager named Patrick Ryan sued Trump and US Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross Jr., arguing that the vague term on transactions between American individuals and byteadans meant they could not get paid. Can. Earlier this month, he filed a request for a preliminary injunction that would prevent enforcement of the order. The court suggested that if Ryan is being granted relief soon, he should file a motion for a TRO instead.
In a response filed on Thursday, DOJ lawyers argue that Ryan cannot prove that he suffered irreparable damage from the order because his concern over lost income is speculative until Ross issues further guidance on September 20 And the loss of money is not enough loss to justify a temporary restriction order. The DOJ has also claimed Ryan – who, along with Tiktok, has alleged that the ban is only part of Trump’s anti-China rhetoric – not taking the national security threat seriously.
“[E]The ntry of an order that replaces the views of a single Ticketcock employee for the executive branch would unreasonably discourage and displace the president’s improper exercise of discretion, and would not serve the public interest, ”states the opposition, which below Is posted in full.
Trump’s lawyers argue that Ryan cannot claim that his assigned rights have been violated “because, even though he is an employee of Tiktok, the executive order does not directly affect him.” Even if it did, the DOJ contends, Ryan is an employee of a private company and “does not have an asset interest in future wages and unearned salaries.”
“And assuming that the plaintiff can pursue a due process claim, judicial review is ‘a very narrow one,’ meaning that the court should only look to whether the government has a valid reason for acting As it did, “” argues DOJ. “He suggests that the President has not demonstrated the importance of the threat imposed by Ticktock to the satisfaction of the plaintiff, meaning that the reasons provided in the order preceded. Huh. As a preliminary matter, the plaintiff has failed to reestablish the notion of regularity that engages. Presidential decisions. ”
The DOJ also argues that Ryan has no business questioning whether the executive order was issued in opposition to the national emergency – nor did the court. The Trump administration is arguing that it would be unprecedented for a court to explain why a president has to constitute a national emergency because it is an “unreasonable political question” and Congress has called a private to challenge the president’s call The right of action has not been made for the citizen. International Emergency Economic Powers Act and National Emergency Law.
The DOJ writes in the file, “The plaintiff contended that he was irrelevant detrimental because he would allegedly lose his income and be subject to emotional and reputational harm,” arguing that not only was the injury speculative, but It is also well-established circuit that ‘[m]Were injured. . . in terms of money . . . Are not enough ”
If US District Judge Vince Chhabria decided to grant the TRO, the DOJ argues that it should only apply to Ryan because he does not stand to claim the interests of other Teatalk employees. The hearing is currently scheduled for Tuesday.
This article was originally featured in THR.com.