TikTok has lost an appeal against plans to ban the video-sharing app in the US.
The social media platform had argued the proposal was a breach of the US First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech.
TikTok pushed to overturn a law that could lead to its ban in a few months.
However, the petition was dismissed on Friday by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Its judges ruled the government’s ban was constitutional because it was designed “solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States”.
The law, which was signed off by US President Joe Biden in April, requires TikTok to break ties with its China-based parent company ByteDance by mid-January – or else it will be blocked in the country.
It was introduced following concern from some US politicians that the company might share user data with the Chinese government, despite repeated assurances from the firm that it would not.
Critics have also expressed fears that Chinese authorities may be able to manipulate TikTok’s algorithms, shaping what content users see and are influenced by. This claim is also denied.
TikTok and ByteDance are now set to launch another appeal to the US Supreme Court.
However, the two firms could also be thrown a lifeline by Donald Trump, who is due to be sworn in as president on 20 January.
Despite trying to introduce his own TikTok ban during his first term as president, the Republican has since changed his mind.
He said during the 2024 presidential campaign that he wanted to “save” the app and expressed concern that a ban would help its rival Facebook.
Mr Trump also signed up to TikTok and currently has more than 14 million followers on the site, although he has not posted anything since his election victory.
Reacting to Friday’s court ruling, a TikTok statement said: “The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue.
“Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people.”
It added: “The TikTok ban, unless stopped, will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on 19 January 2025.”
Some 13 US states and Washington DC also launched legal action against the social media platform in October, alleging it was harming children’s mental health and was not doing enough to protect them.
TikTok dismissed the claims as “inaccurate and misleading”.
A pizza delivery woman stabbed a pregnant customer over a $2 tip, authorities in the US say.
Brianna Alvelo, 22, is charged with attempted murder after allegedly stabbing the woman multiple times at a motel in Kissimmee, Florida.
The victim, her boyfriend and her five-year-old daughter were staying at the Riviera Motel to celebrate a birthday and ordered Marco’s pizza on Sunday, according to a court document reported by Sky News’ US sister outlet NBC News.
Alvelo delivered the pizza which cost around $33 (£26) and was asked to provide change for a $50 bill but did not have the change, the affidavit said.
The woman then searched for smaller bills and in the end gave Alvelo a $2 tip.
She told police that some time later she heard a loud knocking on the door. A man and a woman wearing masks and all black forced themselves into the room when she opened the door, she said.
The man brandished a silver revolver and demanded that the woman’s boyfriend go into the bathroom and the other person, believed to be Alvelo, pulled out a pocketknife, the document said.
As the woman turned to shield her child she felt a strike on her lower back, she said.
She then “threw her daughter onto the bed and attempted to pick up her phone”, the affidavit said, but Alvelo grabbed it and smashed it.
Alvelo then “began striking her multiple times with the knife”, according to the affidavit. The man who had the gun then yelled it was time to go, stopping the assault, it said.
The judge overseeing the case of a woman who says she was raped by Jay-Z and Sean “Diddy” Combs when she was 13 has criticised the “inappropriate” behaviour of Jay-Z’s lawyer.
In a written order, Judge Analisa Torres hit out at Alex Spiro for what she described as his combative motions and “inflammatory language” against the plaintiff’s lawyer, Tony Buzbee.
The Manhattan judge has said she can proceed anonymously at this stage but may be required to reveal her identity at a later date.
Combs remains in a Brooklyn jail awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking and racketeering charges. He has pleaded not guilty.
He is facing a wave of sexual assault lawsuits, many of which were filed by Texas lawyer Mr Buzbee, who says his firm represents more than 150 people, both men and women, alleging sexual abuse and exploitation by Combs.
The lawsuits allege many individuals were abused at parties in New York, California and Florida after being given drugged drinks.
Combs’ lawyers have dismissed Mr Buzbee’s lawsuits as “shameless publicity stunts, designed to extract payments from celebrities who fear having lies spread about them, just as lies have been spread about Mr Combs”.
Jay-Z, whose real name is Sean Carter, previously said in a statement that Mr Buzbee was trying to blackmail him to settle the plaintiff’s allegations.
Mr Buzbee said in an email that his firm does not comment on court rulings.
In her lawsuit, the woman claims Jay-Z and Sean Combs raped her when she was 13 after the MTV Video Music Awards in 2000.
Both men strenuously deny the allegations.
Mr Spiro has previously asked the judge to dismiss Jay-Z from the woman’s lawsuit.
Citing an interview the plaintiff did with Sky’s US partner NBC News, Mr Spiro wrote that the broadcast revealed “glaring inconsistencies and outright impossibilities” in the plaintiff’s story.
Judge Torres wrote in her order on Thursday that Mr Spiro had submitted a “litany of letters and motions attempting to impugn the character of Plaintiff’s lawyer, many of them expounding on the purported ‘urgency’ of this case”.
She added: “Carter’s lawyer’s relentless filing of combative motions containing inflammatory language and ad hominem attacks is inappropriate, a waste of judicial resources, and a tactic unlikely to benefit his client. The court will not fast-track the judicial process merely because counsel demands it.”
She said Mr Spiro – who had accused the plaintiff’s lawyer of having a “chronic inability to follow the rules” – had failed to follow the rules himself. She warned him against future “unacceptable” behaviour.
The woman, who was 23 at the time, said she felt sick and fell unconscious after being served two premade drinks by waitresses, later waking up in hospital with a ripped shirt, missing underwear and shoes, and no recollection of how she got there.
The suit said the woman was left with pain in her vagina for around a week, which she believed was from rough intercourse.
She also said an unknown woman with a New York number later called her, allegedly threatening her to keep quiet.
Combs’ attorney has called the allegations “pure fiction”.
As well as Combs, the woman is also suing Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, which Combs founded; Atlantic Records, which she said facilitated the event; Mike Savas, a promoter for Atlantic at the time; Delta Airlines, which flew her to New York; KKJamz 105.3, the radio station she said held the contest; and the Roger Smith Hotel, where she stayed.
Ten “John and Jane Does” are also listed as defendants.
Donald Trump says that when he takes power next month he will direct the US Justice Department to “vigorously pursue” the death penalty.
The US president-elect, 78, said he would do so to protect Americans from what he called “violent rapists, murderers and monsters”.
Mr Trump was responding to President Joe Biden’s decision to commute the sentences of almost all federal inmates on death row – whom Mr Trump called “37 of the worst killers in our country”.
“When you hear the acts of each, you won’t believe that he did this. Makes no sense,” Mr Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social.
“Relatives and friends are further devastated. They can’t believe this is happening!”
He continued: “As soon as I am inaugurated, I will direct the Justice Department to vigorously pursue the death penalty to protect American families and children from violent rapists, murderers, and monsters.
“We will be a Nation of Law and Order again!”
President Biden, 82, announced on Monday that he would reduce the sentences of 37 of the 40 federal death row prisoners to life in prison without the possibility of parole, saying he was “guided by my conscience and my experience as a public defender”.
The three others the president did not spare are Robert Bowers, who fatally shot 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue in 2018; Dylann Roof, who gunned down nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015; and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who carried out a 2013 bombing at the Boston Marathon that killed three people and injured almost 300 others.
‘I condemn these murderers’
Despite sparing the lives of 37, Mr Biden added: “Make no mistake: I condemn these murderers, grieve for the victims of their despicable acts, and ache for all the families who have suffered unimaginable and irreparable loss.”
During Mr Trump’s first term in office between 2017 and 2021, the US Justice Department put 13 federal inmates to death.
He has since said he would like to expand capital punishment to include child rapists, migrants who kill US citizens and law enforcement officers, and those convicted of drug and human trafficking.
Mr Biden, who ran for president opposing the death penalty, put federal executions on hold when he took office in January 2021.
His latest decisions come after a coalition of criminal justice advocacy groups, former prosecutors and business leaders wrote letters to the White House asking for Mr Biden to commute the sentences ahead of Mr Trump’s inauguration on 20 January.
Pope Francis also appealed to Mr Biden, who is Catholic, to reduce the sentences to imprisonment.
Unlike executive orders, clemency decisions cannot be reversed by a president’s successor, although the death penalty can be sought more aggressively in future cases.