The future of TikTok will be decided Friday by the Supreme Court when it hears the oral arguments on a federal statute that could ban this video-sharing app nationwide in less 10 days.

In its final days, the Biden Justice Department will face off in court against attorneys for TikTok as well as several creators. This is a battle of titanic proportions that pits free speech against national security.

The First Amendment says that the government cannot shut down speech it believes is against its own interests, said Liberty Justice Center president Jacob Huebert. He is a member the legal team of the creators.

According to the new law, passed by bipartisan majority in Congress, TikTok cannot be offered on app store beginning Jan. 19 unless TikTok divests itself from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance or if President Biden agrees with a delay.

The Supreme Court’s decision to accept TikTok’s case is the best hope that the platform has for a final shakeup. TikTok boasts more than 170 millions users in the United States.

A changing administration in Washington has complicated the case.

The Biden administration has defended the law that would ban TikTok on the day of the inauguration. The Solicitor-General Elizabeth Prelogar is expected to make her final argument before the Supreme Court on Friday. She will be leading the administration’s defense at the court.

The President-elect Trump has supported the platform’s fight against the ban and is hoping that the Supreme Court will grant a delay, as he will be taking control of the White House in less than two week.

Trump says that if he were to be elected, he would negotiate a deal which would negate the need for the Supreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional.

In a brief for a friend of the court, D. John Sauer wrote that only President Trump possesses the expertise in dealmaking, the mandate from the electorate, and the political will necessary to negotiate a solution to save the platform, while also addressing national security concerns raised by the Government, which the president has himself acknowledged.

Huebert stated that Trump’s brief raised important points regarding censorship, and how he and Vice-President Harris used TikTok in the 2020 presidential campaign. The attorney, however, insisted that the Supreme Court still should rule the law to be at odds with First Amendment.

Huebert said that the act was unconstitutional. Huebert said, “I do not know why the President would not agree with us and ask for a delay, except that, of course, he and his attorney may believe that it would be easier for the court to address this issue on such short notice.”

The case is being heard at a breakneck pace, faster than the speed in which the Justices dealt with Trump’s claim of immunity as president last year.

Arguments in Trump’s case were heard 57 days after it was first brought to court; those for TikTok are only being heard 23 days later.

The Supreme Court will have the opportunity to rule before the ban goes into effect on January 19. The law will go into effect if no decision is made by that date.

TikTok says that the law banning the app should be subjected to the most stringent constitutional scrutiny. This would require the government prove the measure was narrowly tailored in order to serve an important governmental interest. TikTok says that the law fails this test.

The Biden administration claims that the First Amendment does not apply to TikTok because it is owned by a foreign company.

The administration also claims that the law is in line with the First Amendment, and addresses only its concerns about national security. It fears the Chinese government might be able to access the data of U.S. TikTok TikTok users or manipulate the algorithm covertly.

The Justice Department stated in court documents that the requirement to divest is consistent with the First Amendment, and the tradition of our nation of preventing or restricting foreign controls of communication channels and other critical infrastructure.

Mark Montgomery, retired Rear Admiral and senior director of the Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ (FDD) Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation, argued that TikTok allowed a foreign entity drive the narrative of national security in the U.S.

FDD, an organization that focuses on national security, foreign policy, and other issues of right-leaning, has filed an amicus brief to support the government before the Supreme Court.

Montgomery told a Wednesday briefing that the issue was not the First Amendment but the manipulation of the systems. “And if this is confusing, the Chinese spent the past year reminding us of the extent to which they would use cyber-enabled operations to go after the United States.”

He cited the many cyber intrusions attributed to Chinese state sponsored hackers, such as the recent hack of the Treasury Department.

Sarah Kreps of Cornell University’s Tech Policy Institute said that she believed the national security arguments supporting the divest or ban law were “stronger” than most people thought.

She noted that “Both Parties, both Houses of Congress, and the 46th President” had weighed in on this issue. “They all have weighed in and come to the same conclusion, that these arguments for national security are strong.”

Huebert said that the justification wasn’t sufficient.

He said: “There’s no evidence that there is an imminent threat, such as you would require to censor American speech, let alone on such a massive and unprecedented scale.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. Circuit in early December sided with Biden’s administration.

The court ruled that the law was subject to a higher level of scrutiny, but that the government had cleared this bar. It also ruled that the national security concerns of the government justified the “significant impacts” of potentially banning an app.

Kreps said that TikTok’s fate is still uncertain. He also noted that platforms can be “fungible” and users might be able migrate to another site.

Axios reports that Lemon8, a social media platform also owned by ByteDance and promoting TikTok, encourages users to switch to this app in anticipation of a possible ban. However, it could be subject to law as well.

Kreps stated, “I don’t think it will be the end the world.” I don’t think it will be the end of the world, Kreps said.