[ABeeSea]

That’s just being pedantic. The constitution explicitly bans bills of attainder so any law targeting a specific person or company will be struck down.

[dragonwriter]

> The constitution explicitly bans bills of attainder so any law targeting a specific person or company will be struck down.

The law must be both specific and punitive to be a bill of attainder. A law can nonpunitively regulate a “class of one” without being a Bill of Attainder. See, Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977). [0] So, it is not quite accurate that “any law targeting a specific person or company will be struck down”.

OTOH, a “TikTok ban” based on asserted prior misconduct would pretty surely be seen as punitive.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/433/425

[epylar]

Not necessarily. Only if the Supreme Court hears the case and agrees.

[cbsmith]

Lower courts can rule on it and provide injunctions. If it is appealed and the Supreme Court hears it, then it matters if they agree or not.