It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy.

[link removed]
[link removed]
Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy. We think of it as a mini-magazine in your inbox.

LET’S TALK ABOUT TIKTOK
By Lisa Desjardins, @LisaDNews ([link removed])
Correspondent

You are forgiven if, in the funnel-shaped ([link removed]) cloud of news ([link removed]) we’ve been in ([link removed]) , you have missed that the United States is about to ban — or force the sale of — one of the world’s most popular social media platforms.

Part of the $95 billion foreign aid package expected to be on the president’s desk this week is legislation that would further crack down on the popular short-form video app TikTok, long criticized by lawmakers over national security concerns.

This is not a simple piece of policy or business. It involves a global and fast-growing media company. And the underlying issues slice sharply across generational lines, perhaps more so than across political ones.

So let’s take a brief look at what is happening here.

What does the bill say?
* The topline. Once this bill is signed, TikTok’s parent company, the Beijing-headquartered ByteDance, must sell the TikTok portion of its business within 270 days or the app will be banned for download here in the United States.
* If interested, you can read the legislation here ([link removed]) . The sections about TikTok begin on page 58.
* Mark your calendars. 270 days places any ban on Jan. 20, 2025 — right around the next presidential inauguration. The president can give the company one 90-day extension.

How would a ban work, exactly?
* The bill would make it illegal for U.S. app stores and web-hosting companies to offer the TikTok app to the public.
* Thus, users who already downloaded the app could keep it. But, they would not get software updates, which could lead to TikTok becoming increasingly difficult, and perhaps impossible, to use in its current form.
* What happens then? Some experts point to India, where TikTok was banned in 2020, leading to the creation of alternative platforms ([link removed]) . Others say the lesson of India is that TikTok fans will try to find workarounds ([link removed]) to still use the app.
* Wide implications. A ban will almost certainly mean an end to a robust income source for many Americans who put content out on TikTok ([link removed]) . They would need to use the nearly nine months of lead time to find other outlets.

How would a sale work?
* This is also complicated. But, good (or bad) news! It sounds simple. Initially.
* TikTok’s parent company must sell the app to owners who do not represent an adversary of the United States. (China is seen as an adversary, so any connection to China is out.) They must no longer have any control over the app, user data or its highly prized algorithm.
* But China could make the sale complicated by trying to sell just the U.S. portion of TikTok. And it could leave out the key asset — its algorithm. Some have compared that situation ([link removed]) to the idea of selling Coca-Cola Co. without selling the recipe to make Coke itself.
* A clear signal. China has been clear ([link removed]) that it does not want to sell at all.
* Then, there is the issue of potential cost. A sale of the U.S. portion alone could be worth at least $50 billion, according to experts cited by The New York Times ([link removed]) . That is a price bigger than the GDP of many nations, and one few companies could afford.

Does Tik Tok have any other options?
* Yes, and it is a big one. TikTok is expected to sue over the law, in an attempt to block it.
* This could set up a mammoth constitutional legal battle ([link removed]) over which American priority supersedes the other: national security (as TikTok opponents argue) or a right to free speech (as TikTok stresses).

The bottom line
* The U.S. government is poised to enact its first-ever nationwide ban of a social media company, should TikTok refuse to sell.
* But a sale is also complicated.
* The need for this bill is hotly debated ([link removed]) . National security advocates say this is an imperative, with Chinese adversaries able to use data from and influence American citizens through the app. TikTok disputes that U.S. user data ever ends up in Chinese Communist Party hands or that it has any influence on the platform.
* This could end three different ways: with a sale, a ban or a court rejection of this law as unconstitutional. We likely will not know TikTok’s fate for months.

The potential ban, tucked into a foreign aid bill, could be approved by the Senate as soon as Tuesday night ([link removed]) . For the latest updates on that front, make sure to watch my X feed ([link removed]) .
More on politics from our coverage:
* Watch: Over the weekend, the House passed a long-delayed $95 billion aid package ([link removed]) for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.
* One Big Question: Could anything threaten the expected passage of this foreign aid in the Senate? NPR’s Tamara Keith and Andrew Desiderio of Punchbowl News weigh in ([link removed]) .
* A Closer Look: Historic opening statements happened Monday in Trump’s hush money trial? The NewsHour’s William Brangham reports what happened in the courtroom ([link removed]) .
* Perspectives: A young climate activist on why climate change is not inevitable ([link removed]) .

SUPREME COURT HEARS IDAHO ABORTION CASE
[link removed]
Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images
By Marcia Coyle, @MarciaCoyle ([link removed])
U.S. Supreme Court analyst

The U.S. Supreme Court wraps up arguments for this term with two of the most contentious issues of the year ([link removed]) : abortion and former President Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from prosecution.

That latter case, Trump v. United States, raises an unprecedented claim ([link removed]) of absolute immunity from prosecution for allegedly official acts by the former president.

But that’s not the only legal and political maelstrom at the court. Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States, two combined cases, mark the first time the justices have reviewed a state law ([link removed]) criminalizing abortion since they eliminated the nearly 50-year-old right to abortion in 2022.
[link removed]
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case, starting at 10 a.m. EST on Wednesday, April 24.
Here’s what to watch for on argument day.

The central issue. Welcome to the world of federal “preemption.”

The Idaho abortion case involves a federal law and a state law. The issue is whether the state law, Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, conflicts with the federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a provision of the federal Medicare Act ([link removed]) . If the state law is a direct conflict, then federal law preempts it — blocks it — because federal law is supreme.

The justices are very familiar with preemption analysis. Expect them to press the lawyers on each side about how the two laws conflict by parsing the language and requirements of both.

The Idaho law makes it a crime punishable by up to five years in prison for anyone who performs or attempts to perform an abortion. The only exceptions are abortions to prevent the death of the woman, to end ectopic and molar pregnancies, and some resulting from rape and incest. But EMTALA requires Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with emergency medical conditions, and an abortion may be necessary to treat a condition that falls outside of Idaho’s exceptions to abortion.

What is the meaning of EMTALA’s requirement to provide stabilizing emergency care?

Idaho argues in its brief ([link removed]) that EMTALA, enacted in 1986, was designed to deal with so-called “patient dumping.” Some hospitals were discharging or transfering severely ill patients because they had no insurance. EMTALA says nothing about abortion, has no standard of medical care and would turn emergency rooms into abortion clinics in violation of state law, according to the state’s brief.

“EMTALA merely prohibits emergency rooms from turning away indigent patients with serious medical conditions,” Idaho argues. “Rejecting the identical arguments advanced here, the Fifth Circuit recently held that ‘EMTALA does not mandate any specific type of medical treatment, let alone abortion.’”

The United States counters in its brief ([link removed]) that EMTALA has a broader scope than Idaho contends.

The act states that when “any individual comes to a [participating] hospital” with an “emergency medical condition,” the hospital must offer such treatment “as may be required to stabilize the medical condition.”

“For some pregnant women suffering tragic emergency complications, the only care that can prevent grave harm to their health is termination of the pregnancy,” the United States argues. “In those circumstances, EMTALA requires participating hospitals to offer such care — yet Idaho law forbids it. EMTALA accordingly preempts state laws like Section 18-622 to the extent they prohibit the essential medical care required by federal law.”

What will the women justices say?

The Idaho abortion case is the second abortion case of the term. The justices already heard arguments ([link removed]) in a challenge to the abortion drug mifepristone. Medication abortion is now the method used in more than half of all abortions ([link removed]) . During those arguments, it was particularly striking how the court’s four women justices were so clearly better informed about the medical side of abortion and the female body than their male counterparts. If they had not been present, key insights and information would have been absent. Expect them to play an important role if not on the bench then in the later conference discussion as well.

If the conservative majority that eliminated the abortion right in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization thought that returning the legality of abortion to the states would make the court — in the words of Justice Brett Kavanaugh — “neutral” on the issue ([link removed]) , then after this term they must realize that it was wishful thinking.
More on the Supreme Court and its stacked final week:
* On Monday, the high court heard arguments in the most significant case on homelessness ([link removed]) in decades.
* On Tuesday, justices appeared to side with Starbucks ([link removed]) in a case that involves union organizing protections.
* On Wednesday, as detailed above, one of Idaho’s anti-abortion laws will take center stage. This one involves a state ban on performing abortions, even in medical emergencies ([link removed]) .
* On Thursday, there is a special session to hear Trump’s immunity claim ([link removed]) , a case with profound political consequences.

#POLITICSTRIVIA
By Joshua Barajas, @Josh_Barrage ([link removed])
Senior Editor, Digital

Following the House’s passage of the foreign aid package that included $61 billion for Ukraine ([link removed]) , the threat from GOP hardliners to oust Republican Speaker Mike Johnson appears to have abated — for now ([link removed]) .

Our question: Who was the only person to serve both as House speaker and U.S. president?

Send your answers to [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) or tweet using #PoliticsTrivia. The first correct answers will earn a shout-out next week.

Last week, we asked: When is the last time three people have served as speaker of the House during one session of Congress?

The answer: Never. It’s never happened. (Yes, dear readers, this was a trick question.) Eleven sessions, including the current 118th Congress, have seen two speakers serve ([link removed]) .

Congratulations to our winner: Dale Shomette!

Thank you all for reading and watching. We’ll drop into your inbox next week.
[link removed]
[link removed]
Want more news and analysis in your inbox?
Explore all of the PBS NewsHour's newsletters ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]

============================================================
Copyright © 2024 WETA, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
3620 South 27th Street
Arlington, VA 22206

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
** update subscription preferences ([link removed])