The series of Trump indictments all fizzling out, because judges didn't want to indict an on coming president.

And on this particular matter, Supreme Court 'unsigned' opinion felt confused even though it is termed unanimous.

At places it seemed to complain of the paucity of time/scope to consider all parts of the matter more seriously, and at the end even expressed ambivalence about what is going to happen next even.

Frankly bit of shoddy-ness/confused signalling from Judiciary and Supreme Court.

Perhaps it would have been better to just delay the matter by issuing an interim extension and reconsider the issue taking into account the views of the new administration.

This was no urgent matter that a few days delay would have mattered.

Was it established that existing provisions of law is not sufficient to deal with the issue(perhaps not so easily as by fiat as in the new law, but requiring stricter standards of trial and evidence), necessitating this new law?

Perhaps because US government wanted to do it despite TikTok not breaking any serious provisions of law this law has been made.

It feels like a sleight of hand from government to ban something that has broke no (serious) law (yet).

Did the SCOTUS go into the necessity of having this law to achieve what government wanted, if existing laws would have sufficed, provided that government met the standards of evidence/proof that those laws demanded.

If not, it is as if government wanted a 'short-cut' to a TikTok ban and SCOTUS approved it, rather than asking government to go the long way to it.

What this line argued in the Supreme Court in the oral arguments or in the opinion or in the lower court?

Obviously TT could not have brought this up, but the court could have brought it up while examining the government.

Was government trying to take a shortcut to a TikTok ban which could have been achieved through current law but which needs greater burden of proof/evidence from government.

Did SCOTUS go into the question of the need for such a law considering all other laws which might apply in the situation, just so that government can achieve the same ban without having to prove that TikTok has broken an applicable law.

Perhaps because US government wanted to do it despite TikTok not breaking any serious provisions of law this law has been made.

It feels like a sleight of hand from government to ban something that has broke no (serious) law (yet).

Did the SCOTUS go into the necessity of having this law to achieve what government wanted, if existing laws would have sufficed, provided that government met the standards of evidence/proof that those laws demanded.

If not, it is as if government wanted a 'short-cut' to a TikTok ban and SCOTUS approved it, rather than asking government to go the long way about it.

Perhaps because US government wanted to do it despite TikTok not breaking any serious provisions of law this law has been made.

It feels like a sleight of hand from government to ban something that has broke no (serious) law (yet).

Did the SCOTUS go into the necessity of having this law to achieve what government wanted, if existing laws would have sufficed, provided that government met the standards of evidence/proof that those laws demanded.

If not, it is as if government wanted a 'short-cut' to a TikTok ban and SCOTUS approved it, rather than asking government to go the long way to it.

So question if government has power to do so.

Can they ban RT? Or even the BBC, if the government found it wise to do so?

Then how do court justify that it stands in the case of an app.

First ammendment protections have no National security caveats.

What changed now?

Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone that their speech is not allowed.

Looks like a major erosion of first amendment protections.

Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publications were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA.

What changed now?

Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone that their speech is not allowed.

Looks like a major erosion of first amendment protections.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/cuba-power-grid-1.7356496

It appears power is being restored atleast in some parts.

Also airports and flight operations seems not to have been affected.