[extheat]

They reopened with formal understanding that there will be an executive order tomorrow to suspend the enforcement of the ban. That is a big deal and it's something that they can point to to defend themselves in court should that happen. When President Biden signed the bill, it gave him the ability to extend the deadline by an amount which he declined to do (beyond saying "I'll let Trump admin deal with it"); and soon-to-be President Trump is saying he will do it tomorrow.

[paulddraper]

> formal understanding

I think you mean "campaign promise."

No legally significant action has been taken between now and yesterday.

[somenameforme]

Are you privy to the private discussions between Trump and the heads of TikTok, Apple, Google, and Oracle? Or are you simply assuming there have been no such private discussions?

[comp_throw7]

Trump isn't president yet, so any such conversations are not legally significant actions the way the person you're responding to meant.

[somenameforme]

Not actions, but legally binding statements of intent. If Trump offered a binding statement to the heads of all major players that he intends to offer TikTok the 90-day window and work out a "deal" once in office would be more than sufficient justification for these companies to ease enforcement until things become more resolved.

[comp_throw7]

There is no mechanism by which Trump can offer a statement of intent that legally binds him to following that specific course of action after he becomes president.

[fc417fc802]

Any violation and associated fine would proceed though court. I assume such a statement of intent would have meaning there.

[kelnos]

That's not how the law works, though. Let's say Trump goes back on his word and doesn't sign this executive order, and then ByteDance (etc.) get into legal trouble. If they can convince a judge/jury that they had a strong reason to believe that they'd be acting within the law as they believe it would have been executed by the incoming Trump administration, that could be a persuasive defense.

That doesn't mean TikTok would be able to continue operating, but it could mean the parties involved wouldn't have to suffer penalties for their operation up to that point (past the ban date). But maybe it wouldn't work, and a judge/jury would throw the book at them. We just don't know until and unless it goes to court.

[somenameforme]

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to argue? Obviously you understand that that if you create a contract stating that you agree to do [x] in the future, then you are indeed legally bound to that agreement.

If you're arguing that qualified immunity would enable Trump to break the contract if he so chose without consequence, then that is probably true, but I see no reason that would imperil the companies having a rock solid defense against enforcement penalties in the interim period.

[kllrnohj]

I'm pretty certain an executive order cannot overrule a law. So they're just hoping to either get an actual reversal of the law while Trump is in term or just hoping nobody after him will care.

It's like betting on jury nullification but without the benefit of double jeopardy protection. It's unclear if any of the US companies the law is aimed at will risk it.

[kelnos]

An executive order can't overrule a law, but it can direct the DoJ not to enforce a particular law.

[kllrnohj]

Which would be an EO counter the constitution and obviously not durable itself. In 4 years the next DOJ can just enforce the law on the books with 4 years of evidence of companies openly breaking it. It'd be a slam dunk case

[anon7000]

The law allows the president to grant a one time 90 day extension. (In this specific case)

[kllrnohj]

Trump isn't president and the ban went into effect before he was. There's no legal extension possible anymore under this specific case.