The Supreme Court ‘s decision could come Friday in the case about whether TikTok must shut down in a few days under a federal law that seeks to force its sale by the Chinese company that owns the social media platform used by 170 million people in the U.S.

The justices are weighing a free speech challenge to the law, which takes effect Sunday, against the national security concerns that prompted its enactment with broad bipartisan support last year. A lawyer for TikTok and ByteDance, its Chinese owner, told the court last week that TikTok will “go dark” on Sunday unless the justices grant it a temporary reprieve or strike down the law.

During courtroom arguments, most of the justices seemed likely to uphold the law.

Alongside the ongoing court case, a potential lifeline for TikTok has emerged. President-elect Donald Trump, who once supported banning the app, is exploring options to “preserve” TikTok, his incoming national security adviser, Florida Rep. Mike Waltz, said in a televised interview on Wednesday.

It’s not clear what authority Trump has to intervene, although he could direct the Justice Department not to enforce the law, which threatens sanctions against the technology companies that make the app available and host it. The Supreme Court indicated Thursday that the justices will issue at least one decision Friday, adhering to its custom of not saying which one. But it also departed from its usual practice in some respects, heightening the expectation that it’s the TikTok case that will be handed down.

Except for when the end of the term nears in late June, the court almost always issues decisions on days when the justices are scheduled to take the bench. The next scheduled court day is Tuesday.

And apart from during the coronavirus pandemic, when the court was closed, the justices almost always read summaries of their opinions in the courtroom. They won’t be there Friday.

Any opinions will post on the court’s website beginning just after 10 a.m. EST Friday.

Five Massachusetts college students made their first appearances in court Thursday, accused of plotting to lure a man to their campus through a dating app and then seizing him as part of a “Catch a Predator” trend on TikTok.

The students, all teens at Assumption University, a private, Roman Catholic school in Worcester, were arraigned on conspiracy and kidnapping charges in Worcester District Court. Automatic not guilty pleas were entered for all of them, and they are due back in court March 28 for a pre-trial conference.

The defendants in the case are Kelsy Brainard, 18; Easton Randall, 19; Kevin Carroll, 18; Isabella Trudeau, 18; and Joaquin Smith, 18. There is a sixth defendant who is a juvenile who was expected to be arraigned separately.

Police said Brainard’s Tinder account was used to correspond with the man. She faces an additional charge of witness intimidation. A male student in the group also faces a charge of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.

The target — a 22-year-old active-duty military service member — told police that he was in town for his grandmother’s funeral in October and “just wanted to be around people that were happy,” according to a campus police report. He said a student whose Tinder profile said she was 18 invited him over and led him into a basement lounge.

A few minutes later, “a group of people came out of nowhere and started calling him a pedophile,” accusing him of wanting sex with 17-year-old girls, according to the report.

The man told police that he broke free and was chased by at least 25 people to his car, where he was punched in the head and his car door was slammed on him. He fled and called city police.

Campus surveillance video shows a large group of students, including the woman, “all with their cellphones out in what seems to be a recording of the whole episode,” the police statement said. They are seen “laughing and high fiving with each other” in what appeared to be “a deliberately staged event,” and there was no evidence to indicate the man was seeking sexual relations with underage girls, the police report said.

After the assault, Brainard reported the man to police as a sexual predator and said she was frightened by him. She said he had come to campus uninvited and that she texted a male friend who chased him away. All of this was false, campus police concluded after reviewing surveillance recordings and finding that “first person perspective videos” were being circulated among students.

The teens were ordered in court to have no contact with the targeted man. A lawyer for Brainard, Christopher Todd, said, “We’re just looking forward to having the process play out.” The lawyer for Trudeau, Robert Iacovelli, said afterward his client is innocent and he filed a motion seeking dismissal of the charges against her. Other attorneys were not immediately reached for comment about their pleas.

The Supreme Court turned back a push by the state of Utah to wrest control of vast areas of public land from the federal government, marking a small victory for land conservation advocates who worry that similar efforts may escalate in a Republican-controlled Washington.

The high court on Monday refused to let the Republican-controlled state file a lawsuit seeking to bring the land and its resources under state control. The decision came in a brief order in which the court did not explain its reasoning, as is typical. It marks the latest roadblock for states in a running feud with the U.S. government over who should control huge swaths of the West and the enormous oil and gas, timber, and other resources they contain.

Utah’s top state leaders said they have not ruled out taking their lawsuit to a lower court.

In the Western state known for its rugged mountains popular with skiers and red-rock vistas that draw throngs of tourists, federal agencies control almost 70% of the land. Utah argues that local control would be more responsive and allow the state access to revenue from taxes and development projects.

The complaint sought control of about half of federal land, which still amounts to an area nearly as large as South Carolina. The parcels are used for things like energy production, grazing, mining and recreation. Utah’s world-famous national parks and national monuments would have stayed in federal hands.

Monday’s decision by the high court comes as the newly Republican-controlled Congress adopted a rules package that includes language allowing lawmakers to more easily transfer or sell off public lands managed by federal agencies. The rules consider public lands to have no monetary value, meaning lawmakers will no longer need to account for lost revenue if they decide to give parcels to states or extractive industries.

While conservationists applauded the court’s rejection of what they called a land-grab lawsuit, many remained worried that the efforts will continue.

Public lands under state control could be vulnerable to privatization, degradation and oil drilling, said Steve Bloch, legal director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

“If successful, Utah’s lawsuit would result in the sale of millions of acres of public lands in red-rock country to the highest bidder, an end to America’s system of federal public lands and the dismantling of the American West as we know it,” Bloch said.

Utah’s Republican Sens. Mike Lee and John Curtis criticized the court’s decision and promised legislative action. Curtis, who campaigned on being a climate-conscious Republican, said the people of Utah should be entrusted to manage the land they have lived on for generations.

“Building roads, moving cattle and cleaning up campgrounds all require navigating a behemothic bureaucracy that’s stacked up against the average Utahn,” Curtis said.

In a joint statement with Utah’s Republican legislative leaders and attorney general, Gov. Spencer Cox said he was disappointed in the court’s decision to turn away the lawsuit.

“Utah remains able and willing to challenge any BLM land management decisions that harm Utah,” state leaders said. “We are also heartened to know the incoming administration shares our commitments to the principle of ‘multiple use’ for these federal lands and is committed to working with us to improve land management.”

While lawsuits typically start in federal district courts and eventually work their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, disputes involving states can start at the nation’s highest court if the justices agree to hear them.

Utah leaders noted that the high court did not comment on the merits of their arguments or prevent them from filing the lawsuit in a federal district court. Conservation groups say they’ll remain ready to challenge any future lawsuits.

“This lawsuit is an assault on the country’s long-standing and successful history of safeguarding valuable and vulnerable landscapes in trust for all Americans,” said Chris Hill, who leads the Conservation Lands Foundation. “And while the Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the case is a reprieve, we fully expect this small group of anti-public lands politicians to continue to waste taxpayer dollars and shop their bad ideas.”

The federal Bureau of Land Management declined to comment.

The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a long-running public records case pitting the state’s top law enforcement officer against a national watchdog group that is digging into his ties with the Republican Attorneys General Association.

At issue is whether GOP Attorney General Dave Yost should be required to provide records to an appeals court that had been requested by the Center for Media and Democracy, which pertain to the nonprofit Republican association as well as its fundraising arm, the Rule of Law Defense Fund. Yost’s office also is fighting a magistrate’s order requiring the attorney general to be deposed in the now five-year-old case.

The center, an investigative group, is seeking records from a period when RAGA — a nonprofit that accepts corporate donations — organized a letter opposing clean air restrictions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that was signed by Republican attorneys general. More recently, the association came under fire for soliciting thousands of supporters of Donald Trump to march on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Ohio Solicitor General T. Elliot Gaiser told the court Wednesday that its decision could have ramifications for public records law in the state.

“Essentially, this is a question of if a precedent is set for a deposition of an attorney general in this case, it would be open season for lawfare and the weaponization of the public records act for witchhunts by every gadfly,” Gaiser said.

The center initially requested the documents in March 2020, including records associated with RAGA’s winter meeting of that year.

Yost responded at the time that his office had no pertinent records to turn over or that the information being sought wasn’t a record. As part of a legal challenge by the center, a Tenth District Court of Appeals magistrate ordered his office to answer a series of questions about the communications and subsequently directed him to produce certain documents for private, in-camera review.

The lower court said a review of the requested materials would help it determine whether they were public records or not — dependent on factors such as whether the communications were carried out on state time, were conducted by public employees or involved Yost’s official duties.

Yost appealed the magistrate’s orders to the state’s high court, arguing in part that searching for the requested records would potentially reach into the communications of Republican attorneys general in other states as well as his own staff’s personal and campaign email accounts.

He has also said that the discovery could potentially sweep in irrelevant information having nothing to do with RAGA or its fundraising arm, such as communications about multistate lawsuits his office might be involved in, say, against an e-cigarette maker or Google.

Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy asked Wednesday whether the lower court’s order might be asking too much of the state — for it to produce information, as opposed to records. Justice Jennifer Brunner, the panel’s lone Democrat, asked whether allowing the public official to determine on their own that records aren’t public would be a slippery slope.

“Depending on how this decision comes out, if an official decided to engage in illegal or unethical behavior, he would just simply do it on a private email and the public would probably not be able to find out,” she said.

Jeffrey Vardaro, the Center for Media and Democracy’s attorney, reminded the court that the outstanding order would merely allow the Tenth District magistrate — not the center or the public at large — to review certain documents. He said that undercuts the state’s argument that the lawsuit is intended to harass or embarrass Yost, who he reminded has the job of enforcing Ohio’s public records law.

Vardaro warned the court against making a decision that could allow a public official to unilaterally determine that “entire categories of what should be public records are not public,” prevent courts from weighing in, and empower the official to “refuse to testify about what the records were even about.”

“And so it would take the Sunshine Act and turn it into a black box,” he added.

An ex-cop fired from his job as an investigator at the U.S. Center for SafeSport for allegedly stealing money seized at a drug bust has been arrested again, this time charged with rape and sex trafficking.

Jason Krasley, a former police officer in Allentown, Pennsylvania, was arrested Friday and charged with felony rape and involuntary sexual servitude for crimes allegedly committed while he was on the force between 2011 and 2015, according to a news release from the district attorney’s office.

Krasley left the department in 2021 and went to work for the SafeSport Center, which fired him last year shortly after learning he’d been arrested for allegedly stealing $5,500 from a drug bust he helped conduct while on the force.

The new arrest resurfaces the question of how Krasley was able to maneuver through what officials at the center say is a robust vetting process it uses to hire people tasked with uncovering sensitive information regarding sex-abuse cases.

The Denver-based center was established in 2017 to deal with sex-abuse cases in Olympic sports from the elite level down to the grassroots. As of late last year, it had 36 people on its investigation team; it has tapped into police forces, where some detectives deal with similar cases, to fill some of those positions.

“I am appalled that a former staff member has been accused of such heinous acts in his previous role as a police officer,” SafeSport CEO Ju’Riese Colon said in an emailed statement to The Associated Press. “We hold all staff to the highest standard because safeguarding athletes is our utmost priority.”

The AP has learned of two cases Krasley handled — one of which was assigned to another investigator after his arrest on the theft charges. In the other, the claimant asked if her case could be reopened in the wake of the arrest and was told in an email from a SafeSport employee that “those matters are already being reviewed prior to the requests and media attention.”

Colon said the center has commissioned a third-party audit of cases Krasley handled.

“We are working with subject matter experts to determine what additional actions should be taken in light of the new allegations,” she said.

Krasley faces additional counts of felony kidnapping, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and intimidation of a witness, in addition to misdemeanor criminal coercion.

Krasley’s attorney, James Burke, told lehighvallleylive.com that Krasley “absolutely denies the allegations.” Burke did not return a voicemail left at his office by AP.

Krasley, 47, also is named in a whistleblower lawsuit filed last year by two Allentown officers who alleged widespread misconduct in the department.

Also arrested and charged with felony rape and involuntary sexual servitude Friday was a current Allentown officer, Kevin Weaver, who has been placed on administrative leave.

China’s exports in December grew at a faster pace than expected, as factories rushed to fill orders to beat higher tariffs that U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has threatened to impose once he takes office.

Exports rose 10.7% from a year earlier, according to official customs data released Monday. Economists had forecast they would grow about 7%. Imports rose 1% year-on-year. Analysts had expected them to shrink about 1.5%. With exports outpacing imports, China’s trade surplus grew to $104.84 billion in December, and nearly $1 trillion for the year, at $992.2 billion.

Here are some highlights from the report.

Trump has pledged to raise tariffs on Chinese goods and close some loopholes that exporters now use to sell their products more cheaply in the U.S. If enacted, his plans would likely raise prices in America and squeeze sales and profit margins for Chinese exporters.

China’s exports are likely to remain strong in the near-term, said Zichun Huang of Capital Economics, as businesses try to “front-run” potentially higher tariffs.

“Outbound shipments are likely to stay resilient in the near-term, supported by further gains in global market share thanks to a weak real effective exchange rate,” she wrote in a note.

Chinese exports to the U.S. jumped 15.6% in December compared to the same time last year, while exports to the European Union jumped 8.8%. Outbound shipments to Southeast Asia grew almost 19%.

But exports will likely weaken later in the year if Trump follows through on his threat to impose tariffs, Huang said.

Officials who briefed reporters in Beijing said the total value of China’s imports and exports reached a record 43.85 trillion yuan (nearly $6 trillion), up 5% from a year earlier. China is the world’s largest exporter and the main trading partner of more than 150 countries and regions, said Wang Lingjun, the Customs Administration’s deputy director general.

China’s economy has slowed following the pandemic, partly because of job losses and a downturn in the housing industry, while exports have surged. Under leader Xi Jinping, the ruling Communist Party is promoting upgrading of factories and a shift to more high-tech manufacturing. The report Monday said China’s export of mechanical and electrical products increased by almost 9% last year from a year earlier, with growth in exports of “high-end equipment” jumping more than 40%.

Exports of electric vehicles rose 13%, exports of 3D printers jumped almost 33% and shipments of industrial robots surged 45%. E-commerce trade, including sales by companies including Temu, Shein and Alibaba, registered 2.6 trillion yuan ($350 billion), more than twice the level in 2020.

China does not pursue a trade surplus and wants to increase its imports, the officials said. But while imports edged higher last year, they still lagged exports, partly due to lower prices for key commodities such as oil and iron ore.

Lagging imports also reflect weak demand as consumers and businesses cut back on spending.

“Regarding this year’s imports, we believe that there is still a lot of room for growth. This is not only because my country’s market capacity is large, there are many levels, and it has huge potential,” said Lv Daliang, a Customs Administration spokesperson.

China also is blocked from exporting and importing some products due to trade restrictions, Lv said, alluding to controls by the U.S. and some other countries on strategically sensitive exports to China, such as sales of advanced semiconductors and items that can be used for military purposes.

“In addition, some countries politicize economic and trade issues, abuse export control measures, and unreasonably restrict the export of some products to China, otherwise we will import more,” he said.

The officials emphasized China’s efforts to expand trade with countries participating in its “Belt and Road” initiative to expand infrastructure construction and trade across much of the globe. Trade with those countries accounted for about half of China’s total trade last year.

They noted that China has completely eliminated tariffs on imports from the world’s poorest countries.

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.