Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Court Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arkansas Supreme Court takes TikTok case and grants stay of lower-court proceedings
Summary
On Sept. 12, 2024, the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed to treat the petition from TikTok and related companies as a case and granted a motion to stay lower-court proceedings in CV-24-522; several justices registered disagreement with those actions.
The Arkansas Supreme Court on Sept. 12, 2024, agreed to take up the petition filed by TikTok Inc., TikTok Pte. Ltd., ByteDance Inc., and ByteDance Ltd. against the State of Arkansas and Attorney General Tim Griffin and granted the petitioners’ motion to stay proceedings in the lower court (CV-24-522). The court’s action pauses the underlying state-court matter while the high court considers the petition.
The ruling matters because a stay halts lower-court enforcement and preserves the status quo while the Supreme Court reviews the legal challenge brought by the platform companies against the attorney general. The matter raises questions about the scope of state authority and legal challenges to state actions affecting large online platforms.
In its docket entry the court recorded that the petition was “taken as a case” and that the motion to stay proceedings was granted. The docket notes separate views: Justices Baker and Hudson would have denied taking the petition as a case, and Justices Baker, Hudson, and Webb indicated they would have denied the motion to stay. The transcript identifies the parties as petitioners TikTok Inc.; TikTok Pte. Ltd.; ByteDance Inc.; and ByteDance Ltd., and the respondent as the State of Arkansas ex rel. Tim Griffin, Attorney General.
No written opinion or order explaining the court’s reasoning was included in the proceedings list. The docket entry does not record oral argument, a vote tally, or a briefing schedule; it reflects only the procedural dispositions recorded that day. Further orders or opinions would be needed to explain the court’s legal rationale or next steps.
For reference, the court listed the case as CV-24-522 on the Sept. 12, 2024, docket.
