Ryan v. Trump

Background

Patrick S. Ryan, identified as an employee of TikTok, sought a temporary restraining order against enforcement of an August 6, 2020 executive order issued by President Donald J. Trump. The order treated TikTok as a national-security threat because its parent company, ByteDance, is a Chinese company and the Chinese government might obtain access to sensitive TikTok user information.

The order required the Secretary of Commerce to publish, on September 20, 2020, a list of prohibited transactions involving ByteDance or its subsidiaries, including TikTok. People who engaged in transactions later identified as prohibited could face criminal prosecution and civil penalties.

Ryan was concerned that he might be prosecuted for receiving a paycheck from TikTok after September 20, or that TikTok might stop paying him because of the executive order. He asked the court to prevent the government from blocking payments to TikTok employees or prosecuting employees for receiving their paychecks.

Reasons for the ruling

The court denied Ryan’s application for two related reasons. First, the court questioned whether it had jurisdiction—the legal authority to hear the dispute—because the conflict might not yet have become a sufficiently concrete case or controversy. Whether Ryan could actually be prosecuted depended on several uncertain events: ByteDance’s ownership might change; the Secretary of Commerce would have to list employee payments as prohibited transactions; and the government would have to prosecute employees for receiving paychecks.

The court also noted that the government had filed a notice stating that the Department of Commerce did not intend to implement or enforce the executive order in a way that would prohibit paying wages or salaries to Ryan or any other TikTok employee or contractor. The court therefore found it doubtful, at that time, that Ryan’s fear of prosecution was reasonable.

Second, the court held that Ryan had not shown irreparable harm—harm that could not be adequately repaired later—without an immediate order. His general allegation of reputational harm was insufficient. Any future loss of a paycheck, or risk of prosecution for receiving money TikTok owed him for work already performed, could be addressed later if that possibility became more concrete.

Disposition

The court denied Ryan’s application for a temporary restraining order. It did not decide whether Ryan was likely to succeed on the underlying legal issues. The court also said that any future request for a temporary restraining order would require Ryan to satisfy the other requirements for that relief, including showing a likelihood of success on the merits and that no other reasonable means could protect his financial interest.

Judge Vince Chhabria’s order did not express a view on the First Amendment issues that might affect review of the executive order, stating that Ryan had not presented a First Amendment claim in this case.