## Facts

- The citation “TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, 604 U.S. 56 (2025)” does not correspond, as of January 31, 2026, to any reported U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion in the United States Reports.
- Publicly available reporter information and docket-based sources do not show a Supreme Court decision with the caption *TikTok, Inc. v. Garland* assigned to volume 604 of the U.S. Reports at page 56.
- For recent Supreme Court terms, official U.S. Reports volume and page assignments can lag behind the Court’s releases; however, the specific, finalized-looking cite “604 U.S. 56 (2025)” still cannot be confirmed as an actual U.S. Reports citation for a TikTok case as of the date above.
- Because no such reported merits decision can be identified, there is no authoritative Supreme Court record (opinion, vote lineup, reasoning, or judgment) that can support attributing any First Amendment standard of review, tailoring analysis, or “divest-or-ban” holding to this citation.
- Separate from this citation problem, TikTok has been involved in multiple federal disputes and public-policy debates (including attempted federal restrictions and other governmental actions), but those matters do not establish the existence of a Supreme Court merits opinion at “604 U.S. 56 (2025)” with the caption provided.
- Any prior brief asserting that the Supreme Court affirmed the D.C. Circuit, applied intermediate scrutiny, or issued concurrences under this case name and citation is therefore not reliably tied to an actual, reported Supreme Court decision.

## Issues

1. Whether there is a verifiable U.S. Supreme Court merits decision captioned *TikTok, Inc. v. Garland* with the official citation “604 U.S. 56 (2025).”
2. If no such reported decision exists, whether a summary attributing holdings and reasoning to that citation is accurate legal reporting.
3. What citation and sourcing practices are required when discussing very recent Supreme Court actions where U.S. Reports pagination may be unavailable or unassigned.

## Decision

- No Supreme Court merits decision is verifiably reported in the United States Reports as *TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, 604 U.S. 56 (2025)* as of January 31, 2026.
- Because the cited decision cannot be located in the official reporter, there is no confirmable Supreme Court judgment, holding, standard of review, or rationale that can be attributed to this citation.
- Any statement that the Supreme Court upheld a “divest-or-ban” statute for TikTok, classified it as content-neutral, or applied intermediate scrutiny cannot be treated as a description of this cited case in the absence of a verifiable opinion or order tied to the citation.

## Legal Principles

- Accurate case briefing requires matching (1) caption, (2) court, (3) date, and (4) reporter citation to a real, retrievable disposition before attributing holdings or reasoning.
- When a Supreme Court decision is recent and U.S. Reports pagination is not yet available, citations should rely on verifiable sources such as the Court’s slip opinion, official docket entry, or another established reporter (where applicable), rather than an unconfirmed U.S. Reports volume/page cite.
- A legal summary should not attribute standards of review (for example, strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny) or constitutional outcomes to a case unless the underlying opinion or order can be identified and reviewed.
- If a caption/citation cannot be verified, the material should be labeled as hypothetical, a draft placeholder, or commentary, rather than presented as a decided Supreme Court case.

## Conclusion

As of January 31, 2026, *TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, 604 U.S. 56 (2025)* cannot be verified as a reported U.S. Supreme Court merits decision in the United States Reports, so no accurate brief can attribute to that citation any First Amendment holding, level of scrutiny, vote lineup, or reasoning regarding a “divest-or-ban” law.
