The Supreme Court seemed likely Friday to uphold the law that could ban TikTok, with most of the justices appearing to take seriously the national security risks posed by the wildly popular app whose parent company is based in China.

U.S. government says Chinese authorities could force the company to hand over sensitive data on its massive American user base or influence the spread of information on the platform through its proprietary algorithm.

TikTok says those concerns are overblown and the law should be struck down because it violates the First Amendment.

The law would ban TikTok in the U.S., unless it’s sold away from its Chinese parent company.

The measure is set to take effect Jan. 19, the day before a new term begins for President-elect Donald Trump, who has 14.7 million followers on the platform. The Republican says he wants to “save TikTok.”

Congress passed the measure with bipartisan support, and President Joe Biden, a Democrat, signed it into law in April.

TikTok’s lawyers challenged the law in court, joined by users and content creators who say a ban would upend their livelihoods. TikTok says the national security concerns are based on inaccurate and hypothetical information.

But a unanimous appeals court panel made up of judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents has upheld the law. The court normally takes months to decide cases, but the justices could take action on this case within days, lightning-fast movement by court standards.

TikTok lawyers want the justices to step in before the law takes effect on Jan. 19, saying even a monthlong shutdown would cause the app to lose about one-third of its daily American users and significant advertising revenue.

But during oral arguments, conservative and liberal justices seemed more receptive to the government’s arguments that the danger was real and the law’s biggest effect is on the parent company ByteDance, a foreign corporation without First Amendment guarantees.

The justices, most notably Neil Gorsuch, still had tough questions from the government about how the law might affect free speech of the people who post on the app, and whether the government should be in the business of preventing the spread of misinformation.

The law that could ban TikTok is coming before the Supreme Court on Friday, with the justices largely holding the app’s fate in their hands.

The popular social media platform says the law violates the First Amendment and should be struck down.

TikTok’s parent company is based in China, and the U.S. government says that means it is a potential national security threat. Chinese authorities could force it to hand over sensitive data on the huge number of Americans who use it or could influence the spread of information on the platform, they say.

An appeals court has upheld the law, which bans TikTok unless it’s sold.

The law is set to take effect Jan. 19, the day before a new term begins for President-elect Donald Trump, who has 14.7 million followers on the platform. The Republican says he wants to “save TikTok.”

The short-form video-sharing app could be shut down in less than two weeks if the Supreme Court upholds the law.

Congress passed the measure with bipartisan support, and President Joe Biden, a Democrat, signed it into law in April.

TikTok’s lawyers challenged the law in court, joined by users and content creators who say a ban would upend their livelihoods. TikTok says the national security concerns are based on inaccurate and hypothetical information.

But a unanimous appeals court panel made up of judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents has upheld the law.

The justices will issue a decision after arguments Friday, a lightning-fast movement by court standards.

The conservative-majority court could drop clues about how it’s leaning during oral arguments.

TikTok lawyers have urged the justices to step in before the law takes effect, saying even a monthlong shutdown would cause the app to lose about one-third of its daily American users and significant advertising revenue.

The court could quickly block the law from going into effect before issuing a final ruling, if at least five of the nine justices think it is unconstitutional.

Lawyers for two former Georgia election workers who are owed $148 million in damages after suing Rudy Giuliani for defamation said Tuesday that evidence proves their clients are entitled to three World Series rings that the former New York City mayor says he gave to his son.

The lawyers filed papers in Manhattan federal court asking a judge to find that their clients should be given the rings marking New York Yankees’ victories in 1996, 1999 and 2000.

They noted that Giuliani listed the rings among his assets at a bankruptcy proceeding in 2023 and said his son had provided no evidence beyond his testimony to support his claim to the rings.

A trial over the custody of the rings and Giuliani’s Palm Beach, Florida, condominium are scheduled for Jan. 16 before a judge who on Monday found Giuliani in contempt for his responses to orders to turn over evidence pertaining to his assets.

Giuliani, 80, testified in a Dec. 27 deposition that he told George Steinbrenner when the late Yankees owner gave him four rings in 2002 that “These are for Andrew,” meaning his then-teenage son, Andrew Giuliani, now 38.

He said he paid for them and gave one immediately to his son and kept three others, eventually giving him the rest at a birthday party in 2018. He estimated the rings are now worth about $27,000.

The rings and the Florida condominium, which Giuliani insists is his legal residence and is protected from the judgment, are the remaining contested assets after the one-time personal lawyer to President-elect Donald Trump gave up other valuable assets including his Manhattan apartment, a Mercedes once owned by actor Lauren Bacall and watches.

Giuliani has said he does not know what happened to a jersey signed by Yankees legend Joe DiMaggio or a photograph signed by another beloved Yankees slugger, Reggie Jackson.

Lawyers for the former election workers, mother and daughter Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, wrote in court papers that Giuliani’s son had failed to provide any direct evidence “other than his own self-serving testimony” to show that he accepted the ring from his father on May 26, 2018, or any time prior to this past October.

They said he has never appraised the rings, cleaned them or listed the rings on his renter’s insurance policy or taken out a separate policy to insure the rings. They also said he’d never undertaken any tax, estate or financial planning related to the rings.

The lawyers said that although Giuliani said he gave the rings to his son in 2018, his son testified that he received them no earlier than mid-year 2023, when Giuliani put his Manhattan apartment up for sale. They wrote that if the judge found the rings indeed were given away in 2023, then he should rule that the exchange was fraudulent.

Ted Goodman, a publicist for Giuliani, said the lawyers for the Georgia women “can celebrate over their fight to take Mayor Giuliani’s most cherished personal belongings including his signed baseball jersey of his childhood hero and his grandfather’s pocket watch, but they can never take away his extraordinary record of public service.”

An email seeking comment was sent to an attorney for Andrew Giuliani.

President-elect Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to call off Friday’s sentencing in his hush money case in New York.

Trump’s lawyers turned to the nation’s highest court on Wednesday after New York courts refused to postpone the sentencing by Judge Juan M. Merchan, who presided over Trump’s trial and conviction last May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Trump has denied wrongdoing.

The justices asked for a response from prosecutors by Thursday morning. Trump’s team sought an immediate stay of the scheduled sentencing, saying it would wrongly restrict him as he prepares to take office. While Merchan has indicated he will not impose jail time, fines or probation, Trump’s lawyers argued a felony conviction would still have intolerable side effects.

The sentencing should be delayed as he appeals the conviction to “prevent grave injustice and harm to the institution of the Presidency and the operations of the federal government,” they argued.

The emergency motion is from lawyers John Sauer, Trump’s pick for solicitor general, who represents the government before the high court, and Todd Blanche, in line to be the second-ranking official at the Justice Department.

They also pointed to the Supreme Court ruling giving Trump and other presidents broad immunity from prosecutions over their actions in office, saying it supports their argument that his New York conviction should be overturned.

Their filing said the New York trial court “lacks authority to impose sentence and judgment on President Trump — or conduct any further criminal proceedings against him— until the resolution of his underlying appeal raising substantial claims of Presidential immunity, including by review in this Court if necessary.”

The Republican president-elect’s spokesman, Steven Cheung, called for the case to be dismissed in a statement. Trump simultaneously filed an emergency appeal in front of New York’s highest court.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, meanwhile, said it will respond in court papers. Trump’s convictions arose from what prosecutors said was an attempt to cover up a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 presidential election.

Daniels claims she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. He denies it.

The Supreme Court’s immunity opinion came in a separate election interference case against him, but Trump’s lawyers say it means some of the evidence used against him in his hush money trial should have been shielded by presidential immunity. That includes testimony from some White House aides and social media posts made while he was in office.

Merchan has disagreed, finding they would qualify as personal business. The Supreme Court’s immunity decision was largely about official acts of presidents while in office.

Rudy Giuliani was found in contempt of court Monday for failing to properly respond to requests for information as he turned over assets to satisfy a $148 million defamation judgment granted to two Georgia election workers.

Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled after hearing Giuliani testify for a second day at a contempt hearing called after lawyers for the election workers said the former New York City mayor had failed to properly comply with requests for evidence over the last few months.

Liman said Giuliani “willfully violated a clear and unambiguous order of this court” when he “blew past” a Dec. 20 deadline to turn over evidence that would help the judge decide at a trial later this month whether Giuliani can keep a Palm Beach, Florida, condominium as his residence or must turn it over because it is deemed a vacation home.

Because Giuliani failed to reveal the full names of his doctors, a complete list of them, or of his other professional services providers, the judge said he will conclude at trial that none of them were in Florida or had been changed after Jan. 1, 2024. That was the date Giuliani says he established Palm Beach as his permanent residence.

Liman also excluded Giuliani from offering testimony about emails or text messages to establish that his homestead was in Florida.

The judge said Giuliani produced only a dozen and a half “cherry picked” documents and no phone records, emails or texts related to his homestead. He said he can also make inferences during the trial about “gaps” in evidence that resulted from Giuliani’s failure to turn over materials.

Liman said he would withhold judgment on other possible sanctions.

On Friday, Giuliani testified for about three hours in Liman’s Manhattan courtroom, but the judge permitted him to finish testifying remotely on Monday for over two hours from his Palm Beach condominium. By the time the judge issued his oral ruling, Giuliani was no longer present at all.

Joseph Cammarata, Giuliani’s attorney, noted in an email afterward that the election workers were not in the courtroom either and he called the outcome “no surprise.”

“This case is about lawfare and the weaponization of the legal system in New York City,” he said.

Cammarata said the state criminal case against President-elect Donald Trump and the civil litigation against Giuliani were “very similar. It’s the left wing Democrats trying to use liberal Judges in New York to win when they should lose on the merits.”

At the start of the hearing, Giuliani appeared before an American flag backdrop, which he said he uses for a program he conducts over the internet, but the judge told him to change it to a plain background. He also at one point held up his grandfather’s heirloom pocket watch and said he was ready to relinquish.

Giuliani conceded that he sometimes did not turn over everything requested in the case because he believed what was being sought was overly broad, inappropriate or even a “trap” set by lawyers for the plaintiffs.

He also said he sometimes had trouble turning over information regarding his assets because of numerous criminal and civil court cases requiring him to produce factual information.

Liman labeled one of Giuliani’s claims “preposterous” and said that being suspicious of the intent of lawyers for the election workers was “not an excuse for violating court orders.”

Giuliani, 80, said the demands made it “impossible to function in an official way” about 30% to 40% of the time.

After the ruling, the former mayor issued a statement through his publicist saying it was “tragic to watch as our justice system has been turned into a total mockery, where we have charades instead of actual hearings and trials.”

The election workers’ lawyers say Giuliani has displayed a “consistent pattern of willful defiance” of Liman’s October order to give up assets after he was found liable in 2023 for defaming their clients by falsely accusing them of tampering with ballots during the 2020 presidential election.

South Korean cryptocurrency mogul Do Hyeong Kwon pleaded not guilty Thursday to a freshly unsealed indictment released in time for his first U.S. court appearance.

Kwon entered the plea in Manhattan federal court two days after his extradition from Montenegro.

The indictment alleges that the man dubbed by some as “the cryptocurrency king” lied to investors from 2018 to 2022 to fool them into pouring money into Terraform Labs, the Singapore crypto firm he cofounded.

Authorities say investors worldwide were harmed by the $40 billion crash of Terraform Labs’ cryptocurrency.

The May 2022 collapse came despite the company’s claim that TerraUSD was a “stablecoin” that could be relied upon.

Kwon did not speak during his court appearance, except to acknowledge that he understood English. His lawyer, Andrew Chesley, entered not guilty pleas to two separate versions of the indictment charging him with conspiracy, along with commodities, securities and wire fraud. A money laundering charge was added Thursday.

Chesley and another defense lawyer, David Patton, declined comment as they emerged from the courtroom. Their client was returned to a federal jail after the lawyers consented to his detention.

The superseding indictment accused Kwon of deceiving investors by telling them that Terraform had developed novel reliable financial technologies enabling it to turn blockchain technology into a self-contained decentralized financial world with its own money, payment system, stock market and savings bank.

“In fact,” the indictment said, “Kwon’s constructed financial world was built on lies and manipulative and deceptive techniques used to mislead investors, users, business partners, and government regulators” about Terraform’s business.

“Behind the scenes, core Terraform products did not work as Kwon advertised, and were manipulated to create the illusion of a functioning and decentralized financial system in order to lure investors,” it added.

Faced with the never-before-seen dilemma of how, when or even whether to sentence a former and future U.S. president, the judge in President-elect Donald Trump ‘s hush money case made a dramatic decision that could nevertheless bring the case to a muted end.

In a ruling Friday, Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan scheduled the sentencing for 10 days before Trump’s inauguration — but the judge indicated that he’s leaning toward a sentence that would amount to just closing the case without any real punishment. He said Trump could attend the Jan. 10 proceeding remotely because of his transition duties.

Still, that would leave Trump headed back to the White House with a felony conviction.

Will it come to that? Trump wants the conviction thrown out and the case dismissed, and communications director Steven Cheung said the president-elect will “keep fighting.” But it’s tough to predict just what will unfold in this unprecedented, unpredictable case. Here are some key questions and what we know about the answers:

Trump was convicted in May of 34 felony counts of falsifying his business’ records. They pertained to a $130,000 payment, made through his former personal lawyer in 2016, to keep porn actor Stormy Daniels from publicizing her story of having had sex with Trump a decade earlier. He denies her claim and says he’s done nothing wrong.

Trump’s sentencing was initially set for July 11. But at his lawyers’ request, the proceeding was postponed twice, eventually landing on a date in late November, after the presidential election. Then Trump won, and Merchan put everything on hold to consider what to do.

That won’t be final until the judge pronounces it, and he noted that by law, he has to give prosecutors and Trump an opportunity to weigh in. The charges carry potential penalties ranging from a fine or probation to up to four years in prison.

But the judge wrote that “the most viable option” appears to be what’s called an unconditional discharge. It wraps up a case without imprisonment, a fine or probation. But an unconditional discharge leaves a defendant’s conviction on the books.

And by law, every person convicted of a felony in New York must provide a DNA sample for the state’s crime databank, even in cases of an unconditional discharge.

Can Trump appeal to stop the sentencing from happening?

It’s murky. Appealing a conviction or sentence is one thing, but the ins and outs of challenging other types of decisions during a case are complicated.

Former Manhattan Judge Diane Kiesel said that under New York law, Friday’s ruling can’t be appealed, but that “doesn’t mean he’s not going to try.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s lawyers have been trying to get a federal court to take control of the case. Prosecutors are due to file a response with the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals by Jan. 13, three days after Trump now is to be sentenced.

The defense also has suggested it would seek the U.S. Supreme Court’s intervention if Merchan didn’t throw out the case. In a Nov. 25 letter to the judge, Trump’s attorneys contended that the U.S. Constitution permits an appeal to the high court because the defense is making arguments about presidential immunity.

Much of their argument concerns the Supreme Court’s July ruling on that topic, which afforded considerable legal protections to presidents. Trump’s attorneys might try to convince the Supreme Court that it needs to follow up by getting involved now in the hush money case.

A Trump spokesperson said no decision had been made on whether to challenge Merchan’s ruling.