Gideon Resnick

The Supreme Court declined to delay President-elect Trump's sentencing in the New York hush money case. Trump is scheduled to be sentenced this morning. It comes after a jury convicted him of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the lead up to the 2016 election.

The Supreme Court declined to delay President-elect Trump's sentencing in the New York hush money case. Trump is scheduled to be sentenced this morning. It comes after a jury convicted him of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the lead up to the 2016 election.

The Supreme Court declined to delay President-elect Trump's sentencing in the New York hush money case. Trump is scheduled to be sentenced this morning. It comes after a jury convicted him of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the lead up to the 2016 election.

The judge in the case says he will not give Trump jail or probation. Still, this will cement his status as the first felon to occupy the White House. The sentencing takes place early this morning, so check the Apple News app for more updates. Also today, the Supreme Court will hear arguments challenging the government's efforts to force a sale of TikTok to an approved buyer by January 19th.

The judge in the case says he will not give Trump jail or probation. Still, this will cement his status as the first felon to occupy the White House. The sentencing takes place early this morning, so check the Apple News app for more updates. Also today, the Supreme Court will hear arguments challenging the government's efforts to force a sale of TikTok to an approved buyer by January 19th.

The judge in the case says he will not give Trump jail or probation. Still, this will cement his status as the first felon to occupy the White House. The sentencing takes place early this morning, so check the Apple News app for more updates. Also today, the Supreme Court will hear arguments challenging the government's efforts to force a sale of TikTok to an approved buyer by January 19th.

The social media app used by over 100 million Americans is owned by the China-based company ByteDance. And for a long time, U.S. lawmakers have raised concerns that the Chinese government could secretly force ByteDance to share sensitive American user data or use the app to surveil and manipulate Americans, all of which TikTok claims has never happened.

The social media app used by over 100 million Americans is owned by the China-based company ByteDance. And for a long time, U.S. lawmakers have raised concerns that the Chinese government could secretly force ByteDance to share sensitive American user data or use the app to surveil and manipulate Americans, all of which TikTok claims has never happened.

The social media app used by over 100 million Americans is owned by the China-based company ByteDance. And for a long time, U.S. lawmakers have raised concerns that the Chinese government could secretly force ByteDance to share sensitive American user data or use the app to surveil and manipulate Americans, all of which TikTok claims has never happened.

At the heart of the legal case before the court today are two longstanding principles that Vox's Ian Millhiser told us are now on a collision course.

At the heart of the legal case before the court today are two longstanding principles that Vox's Ian Millhiser told us are now on a collision course.

At the heart of the legal case before the court today are two longstanding principles that Vox's Ian Millhiser told us are now on a collision course.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from deciding who owns media companies and who controls political communication in the U.S. At the same time, the federal government also has a long history of blocking foreign nations from U.S. communications. A lower court judge who upheld the recently passed law that led to this ultimatum for TikTok to sell or be banned cited the 1912 Radio Act.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from deciding who owns media companies and who controls political communication in the U.S. At the same time, the federal government also has a long history of blocking foreign nations from U.S. communications. A lower court judge who upheld the recently passed law that led to this ultimatum for TikTok to sell or be banned cited the 1912 Radio Act.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from deciding who owns media companies and who controls political communication in the U.S. At the same time, the federal government also has a long history of blocking foreign nations from U.S. communications. A lower court judge who upheld the recently passed law that led to this ultimatum for TikTok to sell or be banned cited the 1912 Radio Act.

That allowed only U.S. citizens or companies to obtain a radio operator's license. It was later repealed and replaced, but the general principle is still a part of US law today.

That allowed only U.S. citizens or companies to obtain a radio operator's license. It was later repealed and replaced, but the general principle is still a part of US law today.

That allowed only U.S. citizens or companies to obtain a radio operator's license. It was later repealed and replaced, but the general principle is still a part of US law today.

TikTok, meanwhile, is expected to call on the court to remember that time and again, they have ruled under the First Amendment that the government cannot dictate what is published by media companies or how those decisions are made. But the Justice Department, the defendant in this case, argues that a foreign company like ByteDance has no First Amendment rights to begin with.

TikTok, meanwhile, is expected to call on the court to remember that time and again, they have ruled under the First Amendment that the government cannot dictate what is published by media companies or how those decisions are made. But the Justice Department, the defendant in this case, argues that a foreign company like ByteDance has no First Amendment rights to begin with.