Adam Liptak

The court, which hears arguments on Friday in a challenge to a law banning the app, has issued varying rulings when those two interests clashed.

The briefs, filed a week before oral arguments, offered sharply differing accounts of China’s influence over the site and the role of the First Amendment.

The president-elect took no position on the app’s First Amendment challenge to the law, which sets a Jan. 19 deadline to sell or close the…

In an unsigned order, the justices dismissed the case against the tech giant as “improvidently granted,” meaning they had concluded that it had been a…

A foundational 1984 decision had required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes, underpinning regulations on health care, safety and the environment.

The foundational 1984 decision required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes, underpinning regulations on health care, safety and the environment.

Such tribunals, common in executive agencies, hear enforcement actions without juries, a practice that challengers said violated the Constitution.

The case, one of several this term on how the First Amendment applies to technology platforms, was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked…

A decision against the agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, could have cast doubt on all of its regulations and enforcement actions.

In two unanimous rulings, the justices tried to distinguish between private conduct, which is not subject to the First Amendment, and state action, which is.