opinion about homework should be banned

25 Reasons Homework Should Be Banned (Busywork Arguments)

As students across the globe plow through heaps of homework each night, one question lingers in the minds of educators, parents, and students alike: should homework be banned?

This question is not new, yet it continues to spark lively debate as research findings, anecdotal evidence, and personal experiences paint a complex picture of the pros and cons of homework.

On one hand, proponents of homework argue that it reinforces classroom learning, encourages a disciplined work ethic, and provides teachers with valuable insight into student comprehension. They see homework as an extension of classroom instruction that solidifies and enriches learning while fostering important skills like time management and self-discipline. It also offers an opportunity for parents to be involved in their children's education.

However, some people say there are a lot of downsides. They argue that excessive homework can lead to stress and burnout, reduce time for extracurricular activities and family interactions, exacerbate educational inequalities, and even negatively impact students' mental health.

This article presents 25 reasons why we might need to seriously consider this radical shift in our educational approach. But first, lets share some examples of what homework actually is.

Examples of Homework

These examples cover a wide range of subjects and complexity levels, reflecting the variety of homework assignments students might encounter throughout their educational journey.

• Spelling lists to memorize for a test
• Math worksheets for practicing basic arithmetic operations
• Reading assignments from children's books
• Simple science projects like growing a plant
• Basic geography assignments like labeling a map
• Art projects like drawing a family portrait
• Writing book reports or essays
• Advanced math problems
• Research projects on various topics
• Lab reports for science experiments
• Reading and responding to literature
• Preparing presentations on various topics
• Advanced math problems involving calculus or algebra
• Reading classic literature and writing analytical essays
• Research papers on historical events
• Lab reports for advanced science experiments
• Foreign language exercises
• Preparing for standardized tests
• College application essays
• Extensive research papers
• In-depth case studies
• Advanced problem-solving in subjects like physics, engineering, etc.
• Thesis or dissertation writing
• Extensive reading and literature reviews
• Internship or practicum experiences

Lack of proven benefits

Homework has long been a staple of traditional education, dating back centuries. However, the actual efficacy of homework in enhancing learning outcomes remains disputed. A number of studies indicate that there's no conclusive evidence supporting the notion that homework improves academic performance, especially in primary education . In fact, research suggests that for younger students, the correlation between homework and academic achievement is weak or even negative .

Too much homework can often lead to increased stress and decreased enthusiasm for learning. This issue becomes particularly pressing when considering the common 'more is better' approach to homework, where the quantity of work given to students often outweighs the quality and effectiveness of the tasks. For instance, spending countless hours memorizing facts for a history test may not necessarily translate to better understanding or long-term retention of the subject matter.

However, it's worth noting that homework isn't completely devoid of benefits. It can help foster self-discipline, time management skills, and the ability to work independently. But, these positive outcomes are usually more pronounced in older students and when homework assignments are thoughtfully designed and not excessive in volume.

When discussing the merits and drawbacks of homework, it's critical to consider the nature of the assignments. Routine, repetitive tasks often associated with 'drill-and-practice' homework, such as completing rows of arithmetic problems or copying definitions from a textbook, rarely lead to meaningful learning. On the other hand, assignments that encourage students to apply what they've learned in class, solve problems, or engage creatively with the material can be more beneficial.

Increased stress

Homework can often lead to a significant increase in stress levels among students. This is especially true when students are burdened with large volumes of homework, leaving them with little time to relax or pursue other activities. The feeling of constantly racing against the clock to meet deadlines can contribute to anxiety, frustration, and even burnout.

Contrary to popular belief, stress does not necessarily improve performance or productivity. In fact, high levels of stress can negatively impact memory, concentration, and overall cognitive function. This counteracts the very purpose of homework, which is intended to reinforce learning and improve academic outcomes.

However, one might argue that homework can teach students about time management, organization, and how to handle pressure. These are important life skills that could potentially prepare them for future responsibilities. But it's essential to strike a balance. The pressure to complete homework should not come at the cost of a student's mental wellbeing.

Limited family time

Homework often infringes upon the time students can spend with their families. After spending the entire day in school, children come home to yet more academic work, leaving little room for quality family interactions. This limited family time can hinder the development of important interpersonal skills and familial bonds.

Moreover, family time isn't just about fun and relaxation. It also plays a crucial role in the social and emotional development of children. Opportunities for unstructured play, family conversations, and shared activities can contribute to children's well-being and character building.

Nonetheless, advocates of homework might argue that it can be a platform for parental involvement in a child's education. While this may be true, the involvement should not transform into parental control or cause friction due to differing expectations and pressures.

Reduced physical activity

Homework can often lead to reduced physical activity by eating into the time students have for sports, recreation, and simply being outdoors. Physical activity is essential for children's health, well-being, and even their academic performance. Research suggests that physical activity can enhance cognitive abilities, improve concentration, and reduce symptoms of ADHD .

Homework, especially when it's boring and repetitive, can deter students from engaging in physical activities, leading to a sedentary lifestyle. This lack of balance between work and play can contribute to physical health problems such as obesity, poor posture, and related health concerns.

Homework proponents might point out that disciplined time management could allow students to balance both work and play. However, given the demanding nature of many homework assignments, achieving this balance is often easier said than done.

Negative impact on sleep

A significant concern about homework is its impact on students' sleep patterns. Numerous studies have linked excessive homework to sleep deprivation in students. Children often stay up late to complete assignments, reducing the amount of sleep they get. Lack of sleep can result in a host of issues, from poor academic performance and difficulty concentrating to physical health problems like weakened immunity.

Even the quality of sleep can be affected. The stress and anxiety from a heavy workload can lead to difficulty falling asleep or restless nights. And let's not forget that students often need to wake up early for school, compounding the negative effects of late-night homework sessions.

On the other hand, some argue that homework can teach children time management skills, suggesting that effective organization could help prevent late-night work. However, when schools assign excessive amounts of homework, even the best time management might not prevent encroachment on sleep time.

Homework can exacerbate existing educational inequalities. Not all students have access to a conducive learning environment at home, necessary resources, or support from educated family members. For these students, homework can become a source of stress and disadvantage rather than an opportunity to reinforce learning.

Children from lower socio-economic backgrounds might need to contribute to household chores or part-time work, limiting the time they have for homework. This can create a gap in academic performance and grades, reflecting not on the students' abilities but their circumstances.

While homework is meant to level the playing field by providing additional learning time outside school, it often does the opposite. It's worth noting that students from privileged backgrounds can often access additional help like tutoring, further widening the gap.

Reduced creativity and independent thinking

Homework, particularly when it involves rote learning or repetitive tasks, can stifle creativity and independent thinking. Students often focus on getting the "right" answers to please teachers rather than exploring different ideas and solutions. This can hinder their ability to think creatively and solve problems independently, skills that are increasingly in demand in the modern world.

Homework defenders might claim that it can also promote independent learning. True, when thoughtfully designed, homework can encourage this. But, voluminous or repetitive tasks tend to promote compliance over creativity.

Diminished interest in learning

Overburdening students with homework can diminish their interest in learning. After long hours in school followed by more academic tasks at home, learning can begin to feel like a chore. This can lead to a decline in intrinsic motivation and an unhealthy association of learning with stress and exhaustion.

In theory, homework can deepen interest in a subject, especially when it involves projects or research. Yet, an excess of homework, particularly routine tasks, might achieve the opposite, turning learning into a source of stress rather than enjoyment.

Inability to pursue personal interests

Homework can limit students' ability to pursue personal interests. Hobbies, personal projects, and leisure activities are crucial for personal development and well-being. With heavy homework loads, students may struggle to find time for these activities, missing out on opportunities to discover new interests and talents.

Supporters of homework might argue that it teaches students to manage their time effectively. However, even with good time management, an overload of homework can crowd out time for personal interests.

Excessive workload

The issue of excessive workload is a common complaint among students. Spending several hours on homework after a full school day can be mentally and physically draining. This workload can lead to burnout, decreased motivation, and negative attitudes toward school and learning.

While homework can help consolidate classroom learning, too much can be counterproductive. It's important to consider the overall workload of students, including school, extracurricular activities, and personal time, when assigning homework.

Limited time for reflection

Homework can limit the time students have for reflection. Reflection is a critical part of learning, allowing students to digest and integrate new information. With the constant flow of assignments, there's often little time left for this crucial process. Consequently, the learning becomes superficial, and the true understanding of subjects can be compromised.

Although homework is meant to reinforce what's taught in class, the lack of downtime for reflection might hinder deep learning. It's important to remember that learning is not just about doing, but also about thinking.

Increased pressure on young children

Young children are particularly vulnerable to the pressures of homework. At an age where play and exploration are vital for cognitive and emotional development, too much homework can create undue pressure and stress. This pressure can instigate a negative relationship with learning from an early age, potentially impacting their future attitude towards education.

Advocates of homework often argue that it prepares children for the rigors of their future academic journey. However, placing too much academic pressure on young children might overshadow the importance of learning through play and exploration.

Lack of alignment with real-world skills

Traditional homework often lacks alignment with real-world skills. Assignments typically focus on academic abilities at the expense of skills like creativity, problem-solving, and emotional intelligence. These are crucial for success in the modern workplace and are often under-emphasized in homework tasks.

Homework can be an opportunity to develop these skills when properly structured. However, tasks often focus on memorization and repetition, rather than cultivating skills relevant to the real world.

Loss of motivation

Excessive homework can lead to a loss of motivation. The constant pressure to complete assignments and meet deadlines can diminish a student's intrinsic motivation to learn. This loss of motivation might not only affect their academic performance but also their love of learning, potentially having long-term effects on their educational journey.

Some believe homework instills discipline and responsibility. But, it's important to balance these benefits against the potential for homework to undermine motivation and engagement.

Disruption of work-life balance

Maintaining a healthy work-life balance is as important for students as it is for adults. Overloading students with homework can disrupt this balance, leaving little time for relaxation, socializing, and extracurricular activities. All of these are vital for a student's overall development and well-being.

Homework supporters might argue that it prepares students for the workloads they'll face in college and beyond. But it's also crucial to ensure students have time to relax, recharge, and engage in non-academic activities for a well-rounded development.

Impact on mental health

There's a growing body of evidence showing the negative impact of excessive homework on students' mental health. The stress and anxiety from heavy homework loads can contribute to issues like depression, anxiety, and even thoughts of suicide. Student well-being should be a top priority in education, and the impact of homework on mental health cannot be ignored.

While some might argue that homework helps students develop resilience and coping skills, it's important to ensure these potential benefits don't come at the expense of students' mental health.

Limited time for self-care

With excessive homework, students often find little time for essential self-care activities. These can include physical exercise, proper rest, healthy eating, mindfulness, or even simple leisure activities. These activities are critical for maintaining physical health, emotional well-being, and cognitive function.

Some might argue that managing homework alongside self-care responsibilities teaches students valuable life skills. However, it's important that these skills don't come at the cost of students' health and well-being.

Decreased family involvement

Homework can inadvertently lead to decreased family involvement in a child's learning. Parents often feel unqualified or too busy to help with homework, leading to missed opportunities for family learning interactions. This can also create stress and conflict within the family, especially when parents have high expectations or are unable to assist.

Some believe homework can facilitate parental involvement in education. But, when it becomes a source of stress or conflict, it can discourage parents from engaging in their child's learning.

Reinforcement of inequalities

Homework can unintentionally reinforce inequalities. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds might lack access to resources like private tutors or a quiet study space, placing them at a disadvantage compared to their more privileged peers. Additionally, these students might have additional responsibilities at home, further limiting their time to complete homework.

While the purpose of homework is often to provide additional learning opportunities, it can inadvertently reinforce existing disparities. Therefore, it's essential to ensure that homework doesn't favor students who have more resources at home.

Reduced time for play and creativity

Homework can take away from time for play and creative activities. These activities are not only enjoyable but also crucial for the cognitive, social, and emotional development of children. Play allows children to explore, imagine, and create, fostering innovative thinking and problem-solving skills.

Some may argue that homework teaches discipline and responsibility. Yet, it's vital to remember that play also has significant learning benefits and should be a part of every child's daily routine.

Increased cheating and academic dishonesty

The pressure to complete homework can sometimes lead to increased cheating and academic dishonesty. When faced with a large volume of homework, students might resort to copying from friends or searching for answers online. This undermines the educational value of homework and fosters unhealthy academic practices.

While homework is intended to consolidate learning, the risk of promoting dishonest behaviors is a concern that needs to be addressed.

Strained teacher-student relationships

Excessive homework can strain teacher-student relationships. If students begin to associate teachers with stress or anxiety from homework, it can hinder the development of a positive learning relationship. Furthermore, if teachers are perceived as being unfair or insensitive with their homework demands, it can impact the overall classroom dynamic.

While homework can provide an opportunity for teachers to monitor student progress, it's important to ensure that it doesn't negatively affect the teacher-student relationship.

Negative impact on family dynamics

Homework can impact family dynamics. Parents might feel compelled to enforce homework completion, leading to potential conflict, stress, and tension within the family. These situations can disrupt the harmony in the household and strain relationships.

Homework is sometimes seen as a tool to engage parents in their child's education. However, it's crucial to ensure that this involvement doesn't turn into a source of conflict or pressure.

Cultural and individual differences

Homework might not take into account cultural and individual differences. Education is not a one-size-fits-all process, and what works for one student might not work for another. Some students might thrive on hands-on learning, while others prefer auditory or visual learning methods. By standardizing homework, we might ignore these individual learning styles and preferences.

Homework can also overlook cultural differences. For students from diverse cultural backgrounds, certain types of homework might seem irrelevant or difficult to relate to, leading to disengagement or confusion.

Encouragement of surface-level learning

Homework often encourages surface-level learning instead of deep understanding. When students are swamped with homework, they're likely to rush through assignments to get them done, rather than taking the time to understand the concepts. This can result in superficial learning where students memorize information to regurgitate it on assignments and tests, instead of truly understanding and internalizing the knowledge.

While homework is meant to reinforce classroom learning, the quality of learning is more important than the quantity. It's important to design homework in a way that encourages deep, meaningful learning instead of mere rote memorization.

Related posts:

• Diathesis-Stress Model (Definition + Examples)
• HPA Axis (Hypothalamic Pituitary Adrenal Axis)
• General Adaptation Syndrome Theory
• Careers in Psychology
• The Stress Response (General Adaptation Syndome)

Reference this article:

About The Author

Free Personality Test

Free Memory Test

Free IQ Test

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

share this!

August 16, 2021

Is it time to get rid of homework? Mental health experts weigh in

by Sara M Moniuszko

It's no secret that kids hate homework. And as students grapple with an ongoing pandemic that has had a wide-range of mental health impacts, is it time schools start listening to their pleas over workloads?

Some teachers are turning to social media to take a stand against homework .

Tiktok user @misguided.teacher says he doesn't assign it because the "whole premise of homework is flawed."

For starters, he says he can't grade work on "even playing fields" when students' home environments can be vastly different.

"Even students who go home to a peaceful house, do they really want to spend their time on busy work? Because typically that's what a lot of homework is, it's busy work," he says in the video that has garnered 1.6 million likes. "You only get one year to be 7, you only got one year to be 10, you only get one year to be 16, 18."

Mental health experts agree heavy work loads have the potential do more harm than good for students, especially when taking into account the impacts of the pandemic. But they also say the answer may not be to eliminate homework altogether.

Emmy Kang, mental health counselor at Humantold, says studies have shown heavy workloads can be "detrimental" for students and cause a "big impact on their mental, physical and emotional health."

"More than half of students say that homework is their primary source of stress, and we know what stress can do on our bodies," she says, adding that staying up late to finish assignments also leads to disrupted sleep and exhaustion.

Cynthia Catchings, a licensed clinical social worker and therapist at Talkspace, says heavy workloads can also cause serious mental health problems in the long run, like anxiety and depression.

And for all the distress homework causes, it's not as useful as many may think, says Dr. Nicholas Kardaras, a psychologist and CEO of Omega Recovery treatment center.

"The research shows that there's really limited benefit of homework for elementary age students, that really the school work should be contained in the classroom," he says.

For older students, Kang says homework benefits plateau at about two hours per night.

"Most students, especially at these high-achieving schools, they're doing a minimum of three hours, and it's taking away time from their friends from their families, their extracurricular activities. And these are all very important things for a person's mental and emotional health."

Catchings, who also taught third to 12th graders for 12 years, says she's seen the positive effects of a no homework policy while working with students abroad.

"Not having homework was something that I always admired from the French students (and) the French schools, because that was helping the students to really have the time off and really disconnect from school ," she says.

The answer may not be to eliminate homework completely, but to be more mindful of the type of work students go home with, suggests Kang, who was a high-school teacher for 10 years.

"I don't think (we) should scrap homework, I think we should scrap meaningless, purposeless busy work-type homework. That's something that needs to be scrapped entirely," she says, encouraging teachers to be thoughtful and consider the amount of time it would take for students to complete assignments.

The pandemic made the conversation around homework more crucial

Mindfulness surrounding homework is especially important in the context of the last two years. Many students will be struggling with mental health issues that were brought on or worsened by the pandemic, making heavy workloads even harder to balance.

"COVID was just a disaster in terms of the lack of structure. Everything just deteriorated," Kardaras says, pointing to an increase in cognitive issues and decrease in attention spans among students. "School acts as an anchor for a lot of children, as a stabilizing force, and that disappeared."

But even if students transition back to the structure of in-person classes, Kardaras suspects students may still struggle after two school years of shifted schedules and disrupted sleeping habits.

"We've seen adults struggling to go back to in-person work environments from remote work environments. That effect is amplified with children because children have less resources to be able to cope with those transitions than adults do," he explains.

'Get organized' ahead of back-to-school

In order to make the transition back to in-person school easier, Kang encourages students to "get good sleep, exercise regularly (and) eat a healthy diet."

To help manage workloads, she suggests students "get organized."

"There's so much mental clutter up there when you're disorganized... sitting down and planning out their study schedules can really help manage their time," she says.

Breaking assignments up can also make things easier to tackle.

"I know that heavy workloads can be stressful, but if you sit down and you break down that studying into smaller chunks, they're much more manageable."

If workloads are still too much, Kang encourages students to advocate for themselves.

"They should tell their teachers when a homework assignment just took too much time or if it was too difficult for them to do on their own," she says. "It's good to speak up and ask those questions. Respectfully, of course, because these are your teachers. But still, I think sometimes teachers themselves need this feedback from their students."

©2021 USA Today Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Airborne technology brings new hope to map shallow aquifers in Earth's most arid deserts

3 hours ago

First-generation medical students face unique challenges and need more targeted support, say researchers

Thermoelectric materials approach boosts band convergence to avoid time-consuming trial-and-error approach

4 hours ago

Ion swap dramatically improves performance of CO₂-defeating catalyst

Military rank affects medical care, offering societal insights: Study

Mystery CRISPR unlocked: A new ally against antibiotic resistance?

5 hours ago

Researchers develop a detector for continuously monitoring toxic gases

6 hours ago

Sea otter study finds tool use allows access to larger prey, reduces tooth damage

Accelerated discovery research unveils 21 novel materials for advanced organic solid-state laser technology

Breaking bonds to form bonds: New chemical reaction with potential applications in medicinal chemistry

Relevant physicsforums posts, physics education is 60 years out of date, is "college algebra" really just high school "algebra ii".

May 14, 2024

Plagiarism & ChatGPT: Is Cheating with AI the New Normal?

May 13, 2024

Physics Instructor Minimum Education to Teach Community College

May 11, 2024

Studying "Useful" vs. "Useless" Stuff in School

Apr 30, 2024

Why are Physicists so informal with mathematics?

Apr 29, 2024

More from STEM Educators and Teaching

Related Stories

Smartphones are lowering student's grades, study finds

Aug 18, 2020

Doing homework is associated with change in students' personality

Oct 6, 2017

Scholar suggests ways to craft more effective homework assignments

Oct 1, 2015

Should parents help their kids with homework?

Aug 29, 2019

How much math, science homework is too much?

Mar 23, 2015

Anxiety, depression, burnout rising as college students prepare to return to campus

Jul 26, 2021

Recommended for you

Investigation reveals varied impact of preschool programs on long-term school success

May 2, 2024

Training of brain processes makes reading more efficient

Apr 18, 2024

Researchers find lower grades given to students with surnames that come later in alphabetical order

Apr 17, 2024

Earth, the sun and a bike wheel: Why your high-school textbook was wrong about the shape of Earth's orbit

Apr 8, 2024

Touchibo, a robot that fosters inclusion in education through touch

Apr 5, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

Are You Down With or Done With Homework?

• Posted January 17, 2012
• By Lory Hough

The debate over how much schoolwork students should be doing at home has flared again, with one side saying it's too much, the other side saying in our competitive world, it's just not enough.

It was a move that doesn't happen very often in American public schools: The principal got rid of homework.

This past September, Stephanie Brant, principal of Gaithersburg Elementary School in Gaithersburg, Md., decided that instead of teachers sending kids home with math worksheets and spelling flash cards, students would instead go home and read. Every day for 30 minutes, more if they had time or the inclination, with parents or on their own.

"I knew this would be a big shift for my community," she says. But she also strongly believed it was a necessary one. Twenty-first-century learners, especially those in elementary school, need to think critically and understand their own learning — not spend night after night doing rote homework drills.

Brant's move may not be common, but she isn't alone in her questioning. The value of doing schoolwork at home has gone in and out of fashion in the United States among educators, policymakers, the media, and, more recently, parents. As far back as the late 1800s, with the rise of the Progressive Era, doctors such as Joseph Mayer Rice began pushing for a limit on what he called "mechanical homework," saying it caused childhood nervous conditions and eyestrain. Around that time, the then-influential Ladies Home Journal began publishing a series of anti-homework articles, stating that five hours of brain work a day was "the most we should ask of our children," and that homework was an intrusion on family life. In response, states like California passed laws abolishing homework for students under a certain age.

But, as is often the case with education, the tide eventually turned. After the Russians launched the Sputnik satellite in 1957, a space race emerged, and, writes Brian Gill in the journal Theory Into Practice, "The homework problem was reconceived as part of a national crisis; the U.S. was losing the Cold War because Russian children were smarter." Many earlier laws limiting homework were abolished, and the longterm trend toward less homework came to an end.

The debate re-emerged a decade later when parents of the late '60s and '70s argued that children should be free to play and explore — similar anti-homework wellness arguments echoed nearly a century earlier. By the early-1980s, however, the pendulum swung again with the publication of A Nation at Risk , which blamed poor education for a "rising tide of mediocrity." Students needed to work harder, the report said, and one way to do this was more homework.

For the most part, this pro-homework sentiment is still going strong today, in part because of mandatory testing and continued economic concerns about the nation's competitiveness. Many believe that today's students are falling behind their peers in places like Korea and Finland and are paying more attention to Angry Birds than to ancient Babylonia.

But there are also a growing number of Stephanie Brants out there, educators and parents who believe that students are stressed and missing out on valuable family time. Students, they say, particularly younger students who have seen a rise in the amount of take-home work and already put in a six- to nine-hour "work" day, need less, not more homework.

Who is right? Are students not working hard enough or is homework not working for them? Here's where the story gets a little tricky: It depends on whom you ask and what research you're looking at. As Cathy Vatterott, the author of Rethinking Homework , points out, "Homework has generated enough research so that a study can be found to support almost any position, as long as conflicting studies are ignored." Alfie Kohn, author of The Homework Myth and a strong believer in eliminating all homework, writes that, "The fact that there isn't anything close to unanimity among experts belies the widespread assumption that homework helps." At best, he says, homework shows only an association, not a causal relationship, with academic achievement. In other words, it's hard to tease out how homework is really affecting test scores and grades. Did one teacher give better homework than another? Was one teacher more effective in the classroom? Do certain students test better or just try harder?

"It is difficult to separate where the effect of classroom teaching ends," Vatterott writes, "and the effect of homework begins."

Putting research aside, however, much of the current debate over homework is focused less on how homework affects academic achievement and more on time. Parents in particular have been saying that the amount of time children spend in school, especially with afterschool programs, combined with the amount of homework given — as early as kindergarten — is leaving students with little time to run around, eat dinner with their families, or even get enough sleep.

Certainly, for some parents, homework is a way to stay connected to their children's learning. But for others, homework creates a tug-of-war between parents and children, says Liz Goodenough, M.A.T.'71, creator of a documentary called Where Do the Children Play?

"Ideally homework should be about taking something home, spending a few curious and interesting moments in which children might engage with parents, and then getting that project back to school — an organizational triumph," she says. "A nag-free activity could engage family time: Ask a parent about his or her own childhood. Interview siblings."

Instead, as the authors of The Case Against Homework write, "Homework overload is turning many of us into the types of parents we never wanted to be: nags, bribers, and taskmasters."

Leslie Butchko saw it happen a few years ago when her son started sixth grade in the Santa Monica-Malibu (Calif.) United School District. She remembers him getting two to four hours of homework a night, plus weekend and vacation projects. He was overwhelmed and struggled to finish assignments, especially on nights when he also had an extracurricular activity.

"Ultimately, we felt compelled to have Bobby quit karate — he's a black belt — to allow more time for homework," she says. And then, with all of their attention focused on Bobby's homework, she and her husband started sending their youngest to his room so that Bobby could focus. "One day, my younger son gave us 15-minute coupons as a present for us to use to send him to play in the back room. … It was then that we realized there had to be something wrong with the amount of homework we were facing."

Butchko joined forces with another mother who was having similar struggles and ultimately helped get the homework policy in her district changed, limiting homework on weekends and holidays, setting time guidelines for daily homework, and broadening the definition of homework to include projects and studying for tests. As she told the school board at one meeting when the policy was first being discussed, "In closing, I just want to say that I had more free time at Harvard Law School than my son has in middle school, and that is not in the best interests of our children."

One barrier that Butchko had to overcome initially was convincing many teachers and parents that more homework doesn't necessarily equal rigor.

"Most of the parents that were against the homework policy felt that students need a large quantity of homework to prepare them for the rigorous AP classes in high school and to get them into Harvard," she says.

Stephanie Conklin, Ed.M.'06, sees this at Another Course to College, the Boston pilot school where she teaches math. "When a student is not completing [his or her] homework, parents usually are frustrated by this and agree with me that homework is an important part of their child's learning," she says.

As Timothy Jarman, Ed.M.'10, a ninth-grade English teacher at Eugene Ashley High School in Wilmington, N.C., says, "Parents think it is strange when their children are not assigned a substantial amount of homework."

That's because, writes Vatterott, in her chapter, "The Cult(ure) of Homework," the concept of homework "has become so engrained in U.S. culture that the word homework is part of the common vernacular."

These days, nightly homework is a given in American schools, writes Kohn.

"Homework isn't limited to those occasions when it seems appropriate and important. Most teachers and administrators aren't saying, 'It may be useful to do this particular project at home,'" he writes. "Rather, the point of departure seems to be, 'We've decided ahead of time that children will have to do something every night (or several times a week). … This commitment to the idea of homework in the abstract is accepted by the overwhelming majority of schools — public and private, elementary and secondary."

Brant had to confront this when she cut homework at Gaithersburg Elementary.

"A lot of my parents have this idea that homework is part of life. This is what I had to do when I was young," she says, and so, too, will our kids. "So I had to shift their thinking." She did this slowly, first by asking her teachers last year to really think about what they were sending home. And this year, in addition to forming a parent advisory group around the issue, she also holds events to answer questions.

Still, not everyone is convinced that homework as a given is a bad thing. "Any pursuit of excellence, be it in sports, the arts, or academics, requires hard work. That our culture finds it okay for kids to spend hours a day in a sport but not equal time on academics is part of the problem," wrote one pro-homework parent on the blog for the documentary Race to Nowhere , which looks at the stress American students are under. "Homework has always been an issue for parents and children. It is now and it was 20 years ago. I think when people decide to have children that it is their responsibility to educate them," wrote another.

And part of educating them, some believe, is helping them develop skills they will eventually need in adulthood. "Homework can help students develop study skills that will be of value even after they leave school," reads a publication on the U.S. Department of Education website called Homework Tips for Parents. "It can teach them that learning takes place anywhere, not just in the classroom. … It can foster positive character traits such as independence and responsibility. Homework can teach children how to manage time."

Annie Brown, Ed.M.'01, feels this is particularly critical at less affluent schools like the ones she has worked at in Boston, Cambridge, Mass., and Los Angeles as a literacy coach.

"It feels important that my students do homework because they will ultimately be competing for college placement and jobs with students who have done homework and have developed a work ethic," she says. "Also it will get them ready for independently taking responsibility for their learning, which will need to happen for them to go to college."

The problem with this thinking, writes Vatterott, is that homework becomes a way to practice being a worker.

"Which begs the question," she writes. "Is our job as educators to produce learners or workers?"

Slate magazine editor Emily Bazelon, in a piece about homework, says this makes no sense for younger kids.

"Why should we think that practicing homework in first grade will make you better at doing it in middle school?" she writes. "Doesn't the opposite seem equally plausible: that it's counterproductive to ask children to sit down and work at night before they're developmentally ready because you'll just make them tired and cross?"

Kohn writes in the American School Board Journal that this "premature exposure" to practices like homework (and sit-and-listen lessons and tests) "are clearly a bad match for younger children and of questionable value at any age." He calls it BGUTI: Better Get Used to It. "The logic here is that we have to prepare you for the bad things that are going to be done to you later … by doing them to you now."

According to a recent University of Michigan study, daily homework for six- to eight-year-olds increased on average from about 8 minutes in 1981 to 22 minutes in 2003. A review of research by Duke University Professor Harris Cooper found that for elementary school students, "the average correlation between time spent on homework and achievement … hovered around zero."

So should homework be eliminated? Of course not, say many Ed School graduates who are teaching. Not only would students not have time for essays and long projects, but also teachers would not be able to get all students to grade level or to cover critical material, says Brett Pangburn, Ed.M.'06, a sixth-grade English teacher at Excel Academy Charter School in Boston. Still, he says, homework has to be relevant.

"Kids need to practice the skills being taught in class, especially where, like the kids I teach at Excel, they are behind and need to catch up," he says. "Our results at Excel have demonstrated that kids can catch up and view themselves as in control of their academic futures, but this requires hard work, and homework is a part of it."

Ed School Professor Howard Gardner basically agrees.

"America and Americans lurch between too little homework in many of our schools to an excess of homework in our most competitive environments — Li'l Abner vs. Tiger Mother," he says. "Neither approach makes sense. Homework should build on what happens in class, consolidating skills and helping students to answer new questions."

So how can schools come to a happy medium, a way that allows teachers to cover everything they need while not overwhelming students? Conklin says she often gives online math assignments that act as labs and students have two or three days to complete them, including some in-class time. Students at Pangburn's school have a 50-minute silent period during regular school hours where homework can be started, and where teachers pull individual or small groups of students aside for tutoring, often on that night's homework. Afterschool homework clubs can help.

Some schools and districts have adapted time limits rather than nix homework completely, with the 10-minute per grade rule being the standard — 10 minutes a night for first-graders, 30 minutes for third-graders, and so on. (This remedy, however, is often met with mixed results since not all students work at the same pace.) Other schools offer an extended day that allows teachers to cover more material in school, in turn requiring fewer take-home assignments. And for others, like Stephanie Brant's elementary school in Maryland, more reading with a few targeted project assignments has been the answer.

"The routine of reading is so much more important than the routine of homework," she says. "Let's have kids reflect. You can still have the routine and you can still have your workspace, but now it's for reading. I often say to parents, if we can put a man on the moon, we can put a man or woman on Mars and that person is now a second-grader. We don't know what skills that person will need. At the end of the day, we have to feel confident that we're giving them something they can use on Mars."

Read a January 2014 update.

Homework Policy Still Going Strong

Ed. Magazine

The magazine of the Harvard Graduate School of Education

Related Articles

Commencement Marshal Sarah Fiarman: The Principal of the Matter

Making Math “Almost Fun”

Alum develops curriculum to entice reluctant math learners

Reshaping Teacher Licensure: Lessons from the Pandemic

Olivia Chi, Ed.M.'17, Ph.D.'20, discusses the ongoing efforts to ensure the quality and stability of the teaching workforce

Homework could have an impact on kids’ health. Should schools ban it?

Professor of Education, Penn State

Disclosure statement

Gerald K. LeTendre has received funding from the National Science Foundation and the Spencer Foundation.

Penn State provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation US.

View all partners

Reformers in the Progressive Era (from the 1890s to 1920s) depicted homework as a “sin” that deprived children of their playtime . Many critics voice similar concerns today.

Yet there are many parents who feel that from early on, children need to do homework if they are to succeed in an increasingly competitive academic culture. School administrators and policy makers have also weighed in, proposing various policies on homework .

So, does homework help or hinder kids?

For the last 10 years, my colleagues and I have been investigating international patterns in homework using databases like the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) . If we step back from the heated debates about homework and look at how homework is used around the world, we find the highest homework loads are associated with countries that have lower incomes and higher social inequality.

Does homework result in academic success?

Let’s first look at the global trends on homework.

Undoubtedly, homework is a global phenomenon ; students from all 59 countries that participated in the 2007 Trends in Math and Science Study (TIMSS) reported getting homework. Worldwide, only less than 7% of fourth graders said they did no homework.

TIMSS is one of the few data sets that allow us to compare many nations on how much homework is given (and done). And the data show extreme variation.

For example, in some nations, like Algeria, Kuwait and Morocco, more than one in five fourth graders reported high levels of homework. In Japan, less than 3% of students indicated they did more than four hours of homework on a normal school night.

TIMSS data can also help to dispel some common stereotypes. For instance, in East Asia, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan – countries that had the top rankings on TIMSS average math achievement – reported rates of heavy homework that were below the international mean.

In the Netherlands, nearly one out of five fourth graders reported doing no homework on an average school night, even though Dutch fourth graders put their country in the top 10 in terms of average math scores in 2007.

Going by TIMSS data, the US is neither “ A Nation at Rest” as some have claimed, nor a nation straining under excessive homework load . Fourth and eighth grade US students fall in the middle of the 59 countries in the TIMSS data set, although only 12% of US fourth graders reported high math homework loads compared to an international average of 21%.

So, is homework related to high academic success?

At a national level, the answer is clearly no. Worldwide, homework is not associated with high national levels of academic achievement .

But, the TIMSS can’t be used to determine if homework is actually helping or hurting academic performance overall , it can help us see how much homework students are doing, and what conditions are associated with higher national levels of homework.

We have typically found that the highest homework loads are associated with countries that have lower incomes and higher levels of social inequality – not hallmarks that most countries would want to emulate.

Impact of homework on kids

TIMSS data also show us how even elementary school kids are being burdened with large amounts of homework.

Almost 10% of fourth graders worldwide (one in 10 children) reported spending multiple hours on homework each night. Globally, one in five fourth graders report 30 minutes or more of homework in math three to four times a week.

These reports of large homework loads should worry parents, teachers and policymakers alike.

Empirical studies have linked excessive homework to sleep disruption , indicating a negative relationship between the amount of homework, perceived stress and physical health.

What constitutes excessive amounts of homework varies by age, and may also be affected by cultural or family expectations. Young adolescents in middle school, or teenagers in high school, can study for longer duration than elementary school children.

But for elementary school students, even 30 minutes of homework a night, if combined with other sources of academic stress, can have a negative impact . Researchers in China have linked homework of two or more hours per night with sleep disruption .

Even though some cultures may normalize long periods of studying for elementary age children, there is no evidence to support that this level of homework has clear academic benefits . Also, when parents and children conflict over homework, and strong negative emotions are created, homework can actually have a negative association with academic achievement.

Should there be “no homework” policies?

Administrators and policymakers have not been reluctant to wade into the debates on homework and to formulate policies . France’s president, Francois Hollande, even proposed that homework be banned because it may have inegaliatarian effects.

However, “zero-tolerance” homework policies for schools, or nations, are likely to create as many problems as they solve because of the wide variation of homework effects. Contrary to what Hollande said, research suggests that homework is not a likely source of social class differences in academic achievement .

Homework, in fact, is an important component of education for students in the middle and upper grades of schooling.

Policymakers and researchers should look more closely at the connection between poverty, inequality and higher levels of homework. Rather than seeing homework as a “solution,” policymakers should question what facets of their educational system might impel students, teachers and parents to increase homework loads.

At the classroom level, in setting homework, teachers need to communicate with their peers and with parents to assure that the homework assigned overall for a grade is not burdensome, and that it is indeed having a positive effect.

Perhaps, teachers can opt for a more individualized approach to homework. If teachers are careful in selecting their assignments – weighing the student’s age, family situation and need for skill development – then homework can be tailored in ways that improve the chance of maximum positive impact for any given student.

I strongly suspect that when teachers face conditions such as pressure to meet arbitrary achievement goals, lack of planning time or little autonomy over curriculum, homework becomes an easy option to make up what could not be covered in class.

Whatever the reason, the fact is a significant percentage of elementary school children around the world are struggling with large homework loads. That alone could have long-term negative consequences for their academic success.

• Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)
• Elementary school
• Academic success

Compliance Lead

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Filed under:

• The Highlight

Nobody knows what the point of homework is

The homework wars are back.

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: Nobody knows what the point of homework is

As the Covid-19 pandemic began and students logged into their remote classrooms, all work, in effect, became homework. But whether or not students could complete it at home varied. For some, schoolwork became public-library work or McDonald’s-parking-lot work.

Luis Torres, the principal of PS 55, a predominantly low-income community elementary school in the south Bronx, told me that his school secured Chromebooks for students early in the pandemic only to learn that some lived in shelters that blocked wifi for security reasons. Others, who lived in housing projects with poor internet reception, did their schoolwork in laundromats.

According to a 2021 Pew survey , 25 percent of lower-income parents said their children, at some point, were unable to complete their schoolwork because they couldn’t access a computer at home; that number for upper-income parents was 2 percent.

The issues with remote learning in March 2020 were new. But they highlighted a divide that had been there all along in another form: homework. And even long after schools have resumed in-person classes, the pandemic’s effects on homework have lingered.

Over the past three years, in response to concerns about equity, schools across the country, including in Sacramento, Los Angeles , San Diego , and Clark County, Nevada , made permanent changes to their homework policies that restricted how much homework could be given and how it could be graded after in-person learning resumed.

Three years into the pandemic, as districts and teachers reckon with Covid-era overhauls of teaching and learning, schools are still reconsidering the purpose and place of homework. Whether relaxing homework expectations helps level the playing field between students or harms them by decreasing rigor is a divisive issue without conclusive evidence on either side, echoing other debates in education like the elimination of standardized test scores from some colleges’ admissions processes.

I first began to wonder if the homework abolition movement made sense after speaking with teachers in some Massachusetts public schools, who argued that rather than help disadvantaged kids, stringent homework restrictions communicated an attitude of low expectations. One, an English teacher, said she felt the school had “just given up” on trying to get the students to do work; another argued that restrictions that prohibit teachers from assigning take-home work that doesn’t begin in class made it difficult to get through the foreign-language curriculum. Teachers in other districts have raised formal concerns about homework abolition’s ability to close gaps among students rather than widening them.

Many education experts share this view. Harris Cooper, a professor emeritus of psychology at Duke who has studied homework efficacy, likened homework abolition to “playing to the lowest common denominator.”

But as I learned after talking to a variety of stakeholders — from homework researchers to policymakers to parents of schoolchildren — whether to abolish homework probably isn’t the right question. More important is what kind of work students are sent home with and where they can complete it. Chances are, if schools think more deeply about giving constructive work, time spent on homework will come down regardless.

There’s no consensus on whether homework works

The rise of the no-homework movement during the Covid-19 pandemic tapped into long-running disagreements over homework’s impact on students. The purpose and effectiveness of homework have been disputed for well over a century. In 1901, for instance, California banned homework for students up to age 15, and limited it for older students, over concerns that it endangered children’s mental and physical health. The newest iteration of the anti-homework argument contends that the current practice punishes students who lack support and rewards those with more resources, reinforcing the “myth of meritocracy.”

But there is still no research consensus on homework’s effectiveness; no one can seem to agree on what the right metrics are. Much of the debate relies on anecdotes, intuition, or speculation.

Researchers disagree even on how much research exists on the value of homework. Kathleen Budge, the co-author of Turning High-Poverty Schools Into High-Performing Schools and a professor at Boise State, told me that homework “has been greatly researched.” Denise Pope, a Stanford lecturer and leader of the education nonprofit Challenge Success, said, “It’s not a highly researched area because of some of the methodological problems.”

Experts who are more sympathetic to take-home assignments generally support the “10-minute rule,” a framework that estimates the ideal amount of homework on any given night by multiplying the student’s grade by 10 minutes. (A ninth grader, for example, would have about 90 minutes of work a night.) Homework proponents argue that while it is difficult to design randomized control studies to test homework’s effectiveness, the vast majority of existing studies show a strong positive correlation between homework and high academic achievement for middle and high school students. Prominent critics of homework argue that these correlational studies are unreliable and point to studies that suggest a neutral or negative effect on student performance. Both agree there is little to no evidence for homework’s effectiveness at an elementary school level, though proponents often argue that it builds constructive habits for the future.

For anyone who remembers homework assignments from both good and bad teachers, this fundamental disagreement might not be surprising. Some homework is pointless and frustrating to complete. Every week during my senior year of high school, I had to analyze a poem for English and decorate it with images found on Google; my most distinct memory from that class is receiving a demoralizing 25-point deduction because I failed to present my analysis on a poster board. Other assignments really do help students learn: After making an adapted version of Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book for a ninth grade history project, I was inspired to check out from the library and read a biography of the Chinese ruler.

For homework opponents, the first example is more likely to resonate. “We’re all familiar with the negative effects of homework: stress, exhaustion, family conflict, less time for other activities, diminished interest in learning,” Alfie Kohn, author of The Homework Myth, which challenges common justifications for homework, told me in an email. “And these effects may be most pronounced among low-income students.” Kohn believes that schools should make permanent any moratoria implemented during the pandemic, arguing that there are no positives at all to outweigh homework’s downsides. Recent studies , he argues , show the benefits may not even materialize during high school.

In the Marlborough Public Schools, a suburban district 45 minutes west of Boston, school policy committee chair Katherine Hennessy described getting kids to complete their homework during remote education as “a challenge, to say the least.” Teachers found that students who spent all day on their computers didn’t want to spend more time online when the day was over. So, for a few months, the school relaxed the usual practice and teachers slashed the quantity of nightly homework.

Online learning made the preexisting divides between students more apparent, she said. Many students, even during normal circumstances, lacked resources to keep them on track and focused on completing take-home assignments. Though Marlborough Schools is more affluent than PS 55, Hennessy said many students had parents whose work schedules left them unable to provide homework help in the evenings. The experience tracked with a common divide in the country between children of different socioeconomic backgrounds.

So in October 2021, months after the homework reduction began, the Marlborough committee made a change to the district’s policy. While teachers could still give homework, the assignments had to begin as classwork. And though teachers could acknowledge homework completion in a student’s participation grade, they couldn’t count homework as its own grading category. “Rigorous learning in the classroom does not mean that that classwork must be assigned every night,” the policy stated . “Extensions of class work is not to be used to teach new content or as a form of punishment.”

Canceling homework might not do anything for the achievement gap

The critiques of homework are valid as far as they go, but at a certain point, arguments against homework can defy the commonsense idea that to retain what they’re learning, students need to practice it.

“Doesn’t a kid become a better reader if he reads more? Doesn’t a kid learn his math facts better if he practices them?” said Cathy Vatterott, an education researcher and professor emeritus at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. After decades of research, she said it’s still hard to isolate the value of homework, but that doesn’t mean it should be abandoned.

Blanket vilification of homework can also conflate the unique challenges facing disadvantaged students as compared to affluent ones, which could have different solutions. “The kids in the low-income schools are being hurt because they’re being graded, unfairly, on time they just don’t have to do this stuff,” Pope told me. “And they’re still being held accountable for turning in assignments, whether they’re meaningful or not.” On the other side, “Palo Alto kids” — students in Silicon Valley’s stereotypically pressure-cooker public schools — “are just bombarded and overloaded and trying to stay above water.”

Merely getting rid of homework doesn’t solve either problem. The United States already has the second-highest disparity among OECD (the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) nations between time spent on homework by students of high and low socioeconomic status — a difference of more than three hours, said Janine Bempechat, clinical professor at Boston University and author of No More Mindless Homework .

When she interviewed teachers in Boston-area schools that had cut homework before the pandemic, Bempechat told me, “What they saw immediately was parents who could afford it immediately enrolled their children in the Russian School of Mathematics,” a math-enrichment program whose tuition ranges from $140 to about $400 a month. Getting rid of homework “does nothing for equity; it increases the opportunity gap between wealthier and less wealthy families,” she said. “That solution troubles me because it’s no solution at all.”

A group of teachers at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia, made the same point after the school district proposed an overhaul of its homework policies, including removing penalties for missing homework deadlines, allowing unlimited retakes, and prohibiting grading of homework.

“Given the emphasis on equity in today’s education systems,” they wrote in a letter to the school board, “we believe that some of the proposed changes will actually have a detrimental impact towards achieving this goal. Families that have means could still provide challenging and engaging academic experiences for their children and will continue to do so, especially if their children are not experiencing expected rigor in the classroom.” At a school where more than a third of students are low-income, the teachers argued, the policies would prompt students “to expect the least of themselves in terms of effort, results, and responsibility.”

Not all homework is created equal

Despite their opposing sides in the homework wars, most of the researchers I spoke to made a lot of the same points. Both Bempechat and Pope were quick to bring up how parents and schools confuse rigor with workload, treating the volume of assignments as a proxy for quality of learning. Bempechat, who is known for defending homework, has written extensively about how plenty of it lacks clear purpose, requires the purchasing of unnecessary supplies, and takes longer than it needs to. Likewise, when Pope instructs graduate-level classes on curriculum, she asks her students to think about the larger purpose they’re trying to achieve with homework: If they can get the job done in the classroom, there’s no point in sending home more work.

At its best, pandemic-era teaching facilitated that last approach. Honolulu-based teacher Christina Torres Cawdery told me that, early in the pandemic, she often had a cohort of kids in her classroom for four hours straight, as her school tried to avoid too much commingling. She couldn’t lecture for four hours, so she gave the students plenty of time to complete independent and project-based work. At the end of most school days, she didn’t feel the need to send them home with more to do.

A similar limited-homework philosophy worked at a public middle school in Chelsea, Massachusetts. A couple of teachers there turned as much class as possible into an opportunity for small-group practice, allowing kids to work on problems that traditionally would be assigned for homework, Jessica Flick, a math coach who leads department meetings at the school, told me. It was inspired by a philosophy pioneered by Simon Fraser University professor Peter Liljedahl, whose influential book Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics reframes homework as “check-your-understanding questions” rather than as compulsory work. Last year, Flick found that the two eighth grade classes whose teachers adopted this strategy performed the best on state tests, and this year, she has encouraged other teachers to implement it.

Teachers know that plenty of homework is tedious and unproductive. Jeannemarie Dawson De Quiroz, who has taught for more than 20 years in low-income Boston and Los Angeles pilot and charter schools, says that in her first years on the job she frequently assigned “drill and kill” tasks and questions that she now feels unfairly stumped students. She said designing good homework wasn’t part of her teaching programs, nor was it meaningfully discussed in professional development. With more experience, she turned as much class time as she could into practice time and limited what she sent home.

“The thing about homework that’s sticky is that not all homework is created equal,” says Jill Harrison Berg, a former teacher and the author of Uprooting Instructional Inequity . “Some homework is a genuine waste of time and requires lots of resources for no good reason. And other homework is really useful.”

Cutting homework has to be part of a larger strategy

The takeaways are clear: Schools can make cuts to homework, but those cuts should be part of a strategy to improve the quality of education for all students. If the point of homework was to provide more practice, districts should think about how students can make it up during class — or offer time during or after school for students to seek help from teachers. If it was to move the curriculum along, it’s worth considering whether strategies like Liljedahl’s can get more done in less time.

Some of the best thinking around effective assignments comes from those most critical of the current practice. Denise Pope proposes that, before assigning homework, teachers should consider whether students understand the purpose of the work and whether they can do it without help. If teachers think it’s something that can’t be done in class, they should be mindful of how much time it should take and the feedback they should provide. It’s questions like these that De Quiroz considered before reducing the volume of work she sent home.

More than a year after the new homework policy began in Marlborough, Hennessy still hears from parents who incorrectly “think homework isn’t happening” despite repeated assurances that kids still can receive work. She thinks part of the reason is that education has changed over the years. “I think what we’re trying to do is establish that homework may be an element of educating students,” she told me. “But it may not be what parents think of as what they grew up with. ... It’s going to need to adapt, per the teaching and the curriculum, and how it’s being delivered in each classroom.”

For the policy to work, faculty, parents, and students will all have to buy into a shared vision of what school ought to look like. The district is working on it — in November, it hosted and uploaded to YouTube a round-table discussion on homework between district administrators — but considering the sustained confusion, the path ahead seems difficult.

When I asked Luis Torres about whether he thought homework serves a useful part in PS 55’s curriculum, he said yes, of course it was — despite the effort and money it takes to keep the school open after hours to help them do it. “The children need the opportunity to practice,” he said. “If you don’t give them opportunities to practice what they learn, they’re going to forget.” But Torres doesn’t care if the work is done at home. The school stays open until around 6 pm on weekdays, even during breaks. Tutors through New York City’s Department of Youth and Community Development programs help kids with work after school so they don’t need to take it with them.

As schools weigh the purpose of homework in an unequal world, it’s tempting to dispose of a practice that presents real, practical problems to students across the country. But getting rid of homework is unlikely to do much good on its own. Before cutting it, it’s worth thinking about what good assignments are meant to do in the first place. It’s crucial that students from all socioeconomic backgrounds tackle complex quantitative problems and hone their reading and writing skills. It’s less important that the work comes home with them.

Jacob Sweet is a freelance writer in Somerville, Massachusetts. He is a frequent contributor to the New Yorker, among other publications.

Will you support Vox today?

Millions rely on Vox’s journalism to understand the coronavirus crisis. We believe it pays off for all of us, as a society and a democracy, when our neighbors and fellow citizens can access clear, concise information on the pandemic. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive. Support from our readers helps us keep it free for everyone. If you have already made a financial contribution to Vox, thank you. If not, please consider making a contribution today from as little as $3.

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Social media platforms aren’t equipped to handle the negative effects of their algorithms abroad. Neither is the law.

The real science behind the billionaire pursuit of immortality, if you want to belong, find a third place, sign up for the newsletter today, explained, thanks for signing up.

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

• Subscribe to BBC Science Focus Magazine
• Previous Issues
• Future tech
• Everyday science
• Planet Earth
• Newsletters

Should homework be banned?

Social media has sparked into life about whether children should be given homework - should students be freed from this daily chore? Dr Gerald Letendre, a professor of education at Pennsylvania State University, investigates.

We’ve all done it: pretended to leave an essay at home, or stayed up until 2am to finish a piece of coursework we’ve been ignoring for weeks. Homework, for some people, is seen as a chore that’s ‘wrecking kids’ or ‘killing parents’, while others think it is an essential part of a well-rounded education. The problem is far from new: public debates about homework have been raging since at least the early-1900s, and recently spilled over into a Twitter feud between Gary Lineker and Piers Morgan.

Ironically, the conversation surrounding homework often ignores the scientific ‘homework’ that researchers have carried out. Many detailed studies have been conducted, and can guide parents, teachers and administrators to make sensible decisions about how much work should be completed by students outside of the classroom.

So why does homework stir up such strong emotions? One reason is that, by its very nature, it is an intrusion of schoolwork into family life. I carried out a study in 2005, and found that the amount of time that children and adolescents spend in school, from nursery right up to the end of compulsory education, has greatly increased over the last century . This means that more of a child’s time is taken up with education, so family time is reduced. This increases pressure on the boundary between the family and the school.

Plus, the amount of homework that students receive appears to be increasing, especially in the early years when parents are keen for their children to play with friends and spend time with the family.

Finally, success in school has become increasingly important to success in life. Parents can use homework to promote, or exercise control over, their child’s academic trajectory, and hopefully ensure their future educational success. But this often leaves parents conflicted – they want their children to be successful in school, but they don’t want them to be stressed or upset because of an unmanageable workload.

However, the issue isn’t simply down to the opinions of parents, children and their teachers – governments also like to get involved. In the autumn of 2012, French president François Hollande hit world headlines after making a comment about banning homework, ostensibly because it promoted inequality. The Chinese government has also toyed with a ban, because of concerns about excessive academic pressure being put on children.

The problem is, some politicians and national administrators regard regulatory policy in education as a solution for a wide array of social, economic and political issues, perhaps without considering the consequences for students and parents.

Does homework work?

Homework seems to generally have a positive effect for high school students, according to an extensive range of empirical literature. For example, Duke University’s Prof Harris Cooper carried out a meta-analysis using data from US schools, covering a period from 1987 to 2003. He found that homework offered a general beneficial impact on test scores and improvements in attitude, with a greater effect seen in older students. But dig deeper into the issue and a complex set of factors quickly emerges, related to how much homework students do, and exactly how they feel about it.

In 2009, Prof Ulrich Trautwein and his team at the University of Tübingen found that in order to establish whether homework is having any effect, researchers must take into account the differences both between and within classes . For example, a teacher may assign a good deal of homework to a lower-level class, producing an association between more homework and lower levels of achievement. Yet, within the same class, individual students may vary significantly in how much homework improves their baseline performance. Plus, there is the fact that some students are simply more efficient at completing their homework than others, and it becomes quite difficult to pinpoint just what type of homework, and how much of it, will affect overall academic performance.

Over the last century, the amount of time that children and adolescents spend in school has greatly increased

Gender is also a major factor. For example, a study of US high school students carried out by Prof Gary Natriello in the 1980s revealed that girls devote more time to homework than boys, while a follow-up study found that US girls tend to spend more time on mathematics homework than boys. Another study, this time of African-American students in the US, found that eighth grade (ages 13-14) girls were more likely to successfully manage both their tasks and emotions around schoolwork, and were more likely to finish homework.

So why do girls seem to respond more positively to homework? One possible answer proposed by Eunsook Hong of the University of Nevada in 2011 is that teachers tend to rate girls’ habits and attitudes towards work more favourably than boys’. This perception could potentially set up a positive feedback loop between teacher expectations and the children’s capacity for academic work based on gender, resulting in girls outperforming boys. All of this makes it particularly difficult to determine the extent to which homework is helping, though it is clear that simply increasing the time spent on assignments does not directly correspond to a universal increase in learning.

Can homework cause damage?

The lack of empirical data supporting homework in the early years of education, along with an emerging trend to assign more work to this age range, appears to be fuelling parental concerns about potential negative effects. But, aside from anecdotes of increased tension in the household, is there any evidence of this? Can doing too much homework actually damage children?

Evidence suggests extreme amounts of homework can indeed have serious effects on students’ health and well-being. A Chinese study carried out in 2010 found a link between excessive homework and sleep disruption: children who had less homework had better routines and more stable sleep schedules. A Canadian study carried out in 2015 by Isabelle Michaud found that high levels of homework were associated with a greater risk of obesity among boys, if they were already feeling stressed about school in general.

For useful revision guides and video clips to assist with learning, visit BBC Bitesize . This is a free online study resource for UK students from early years up to GCSEs and Scottish Highers.

It is also worth noting that too much homework can create negative effects that may undermine any positives. These negative consequences may not only affect the child, but also could also pile on the stress for the whole family, according to a recent study by Robert Pressman of the New England Centre for Pediatric Psychology. Parents were particularly affected when their perception of their own capacity to assist their children decreased.

What then, is the tipping point, and when does homework simply become too much for parents and children? Guidelines typically suggest that children in the first grade (six years old) should have no more that 10 minutes per night, and that this amount should increase by 10 minutes per school year. However, cultural norms may greatly affect what constitutes too much.

A study of children aged between 8 and 10 in Quebec defined high levels of homework as more than 30 minutes a night, but a study in China of children aged 5 to 11 deemed that two or more hours per night was excessive. It is therefore difficult to create a clear standard for what constitutes as too much homework, because cultural differences, school-related stress, and negative emotions within the family all appear to interact with how homework affects children.

Should we stop setting homework?

In my opinion, even though there are potential risks of negative effects, homework should not be banned. Small amounts, assigned with specific learning goals in mind and with proper parental support, can help to improve students’ performance. While some studies have generally found little evidence that homework has a positive effect on young children overall, a 2008 study by Norwegian researcher Marte Rønning found that even some very young children do receive some benefit. So simply banning homework would mean that any particularly gifted or motivated pupils would not be able to benefit from increased study. However, at the earliest ages, very little homework should be assigned. The decisions about how much and what type are best left to teachers and parents.

As a parent, it is important to clarify what goals your child’s teacher has for homework assignments. Teachers can assign work for different reasons – as an academic drill to foster better study habits, and unfortunately, as a punishment. The goals for each assignment should be made clear, and should encourage positive engagement with academic routines.

Parents should inform the teachers of how long the homework is taking, as teachers often incorrectly estimate the amount of time needed to complete an assignment, and how it is affecting household routines. For young children, positive teacher support and feedback is critical in establishing a student’s positive perception of homework and other academic routines. Teachers and parents need to be vigilant and ensure that homework routines do not start to generate patterns of negative interaction that erode students’ motivation.

Likewise, any positive effects of homework are dependent on several complex interactive factors, including the child’s personal motivation, the type of assignment, parental support and teacher goals. Creating an overarching policy to address every single situation is not realistic, and so homework policies tend to be fixated on the time the homework takes to complete. But rather than focusing on this, everyone would be better off if schools worked on fostering stronger communication between parents, teachers and students, allowing them to respond more sensitively to the child’s emotional and academic needs.

• Five brilliant science books for kids
• Will e-learning replace teachers?

Follow Science Focus on Twitter , Facebook , Instagram and Flipboard

Share this article

• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy policy
• Cookies policy
• Code of conduct
• Magazine subscriptions
• Manage preferences

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Education scholar Denise Pope has found that too much homework has negative effects on student well-being and behavioral engagement. (Image credit: L.A. Cicero)

A Stanford researcher found that too much homework can negatively affect kids, especially their lives away from school, where family, friends and activities matter.

“Our findings on the effects of homework challenge the traditional assumption that homework is inherently good,” wrote Denise Pope , a senior lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Education and a co-author of a study published in the Journal of Experimental Education .

The researchers used survey data to examine perceptions about homework, student well-being and behavioral engagement in a sample of 4,317 students from 10 high-performing high schools in upper-middle-class California communities. Along with the survey data, Pope and her colleagues used open-ended answers to explore the students’ views on homework.

Median household income exceeded $90,000 in these communities, and 93 percent of the students went on to college, either two-year or four-year.

Students in these schools average about 3.1 hours of homework each night.

“The findings address how current homework practices in privileged, high-performing schools sustain students’ advantage in competitive climates yet hinder learning, full engagement and well-being,” Pope wrote.

Pope and her colleagues found that too much homework can diminish its effectiveness and even be counterproductive. They cite prior research indicating that homework benefits plateau at about two hours per night, and that 90 minutes to two and a half hours is optimal for high school.

Their study found that too much homework is associated with:

* Greater stress: 56 percent of the students considered homework a primary source of stress, according to the survey data. Forty-three percent viewed tests as a primary stressor, while 33 percent put the pressure to get good grades in that category. Less than 1 percent of the students said homework was not a stressor.

* Reductions in health: In their open-ended answers, many students said their homework load led to sleep deprivation and other health problems. The researchers asked students whether they experienced health issues such as headaches, exhaustion, sleep deprivation, weight loss and stomach problems.

* Less time for friends, family and extracurricular pursuits: Both the survey data and student responses indicate that spending too much time on homework meant that students were “not meeting their developmental needs or cultivating other critical life skills,” according to the researchers. Students were more likely to drop activities, not see friends or family, and not pursue hobbies they enjoy.

A balancing act

The results offer empirical evidence that many students struggle to find balance between homework, extracurricular activities and social time, the researchers said. Many students felt forced or obligated to choose homework over developing other talents or skills.

Also, there was no relationship between the time spent on homework and how much the student enjoyed it. The research quoted students as saying they often do homework they see as “pointless” or “mindless” in order to keep their grades up.

“This kind of busy work, by its very nature, discourages learning and instead promotes doing homework simply to get points,” Pope said.

She said the research calls into question the value of assigning large amounts of homework in high-performing schools. Homework should not be simply assigned as a routine practice, she said.

“Rather, any homework assigned should have a purpose and benefit, and it should be designed to cultivate learning and development,” wrote Pope.

High-performing paradox

In places where students attend high-performing schools, too much homework can reduce their time to foster skills in the area of personal responsibility, the researchers concluded. “Young people are spending more time alone,” they wrote, “which means less time for family and fewer opportunities to engage in their communities.”

Student perspectives

The researchers say that while their open-ended or “self-reporting” methodology to gauge student concerns about homework may have limitations – some might regard it as an opportunity for “typical adolescent complaining” – it was important to learn firsthand what the students believe.

The paper was co-authored by Mollie Galloway from Lewis and Clark College and Jerusha Conner from Villanova University.

Media Contacts

Denise Pope, Stanford Graduate School of Education: (650) 725-7412, [email protected] Clifton B. Parker, Stanford News Service: (650) 725-0224, [email protected]

Is Homework Good for Kids? Here’s What the Research Says

A s kids return to school, debate is heating up once again over how they should spend their time after they leave the classroom for the day.

The no-homework policy of a second-grade teacher in Texas went viral last week , earning praise from parents across the country who lament the heavy workload often assigned to young students. Brandy Young told parents she would not formally assign any homework this year, asking students instead to eat dinner with their families, play outside and go to bed early.

But the question of how much work children should be doing outside of school remains controversial, and plenty of parents take issue with no-homework policies, worried their kids are losing a potential academic advantage. Here’s what you need to know:

For decades, the homework standard has been a “10-minute rule,” which recommends a daily maximum of 10 minutes of homework per grade level. Second graders, for example, should do about 20 minutes of homework each night. High school seniors should complete about two hours of homework each night. The National PTA and the National Education Association both support that guideline.

But some schools have begun to give their youngest students a break. A Massachusetts elementary school has announced a no-homework pilot program for the coming school year, lengthening the school day by two hours to provide more in-class instruction. “We really want kids to go home at 4 o’clock, tired. We want their brain to be tired,” Kelly Elementary School Principal Jackie Glasheen said in an interview with a local TV station . “We want them to enjoy their families. We want them to go to soccer practice or football practice, and we want them to go to bed. And that’s it.”

A New York City public elementary school implemented a similar policy last year, eliminating traditional homework assignments in favor of family time. The change was quickly met with outrage from some parents, though it earned support from other education leaders.

New solutions and approaches to homework differ by community, and these local debates are complicated by the fact that even education experts disagree about what’s best for kids.

The research

The most comprehensive research on homework to date comes from a 2006 meta-analysis by Duke University psychology professor Harris Cooper, who found evidence of a positive correlation between homework and student achievement, meaning students who did homework performed better in school. The correlation was stronger for older students—in seventh through 12th grade—than for those in younger grades, for whom there was a weak relationship between homework and performance.

Cooper’s analysis focused on how homework impacts academic achievement—test scores, for example. His report noted that homework is also thought to improve study habits, attitudes toward school, self-discipline, inquisitiveness and independent problem solving skills. On the other hand, some studies he examined showed that homework can cause physical and emotional fatigue, fuel negative attitudes about learning and limit leisure time for children. At the end of his analysis, Cooper recommended further study of such potential effects of homework.

Despite the weak correlation between homework and performance for young children, Cooper argues that a small amount of homework is useful for all students. Second-graders should not be doing two hours of homework each night, he said, but they also shouldn’t be doing no homework.

Not all education experts agree entirely with Cooper’s assessment.

Cathy Vatterott, an education professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, supports the “10-minute rule” as a maximum, but she thinks there is not sufficient proof that homework is helpful for students in elementary school.

“Correlation is not causation,” she said. “Does homework cause achievement, or do high achievers do more homework?”

Vatterott, the author of Rethinking Homework: Best Practices That Support Diverse Needs , thinks there should be more emphasis on improving the quality of homework tasks, and she supports efforts to eliminate homework for younger kids.

“I have no concerns about students not starting homework until fourth grade or fifth grade,” she said, noting that while the debate over homework will undoubtedly continue, she has noticed a trend toward limiting, if not eliminating, homework in elementary school.

The issue has been debated for decades. A TIME cover in 1999 read: “Too much homework! How it’s hurting our kids, and what parents should do about it.” The accompanying story noted that the launch of Sputnik in 1957 led to a push for better math and science education in the U.S. The ensuing pressure to be competitive on a global scale, plus the increasingly demanding college admissions process, fueled the practice of assigning homework.

“The complaints are cyclical, and we’re in the part of the cycle now where the concern is for too much,” Cooper said. “You can go back to the 1970s, when you’ll find there were concerns that there was too little, when we were concerned about our global competitiveness.”

Cooper acknowledged that some students really are bringing home too much homework, and their parents are right to be concerned.

“A good way to think about homework is the way you think about medications or dietary supplements,” he said. “If you take too little, they’ll have no effect. If you take too much, they can kill you. If you take the right amount, you’ll get better.”

More Must-Reads from TIME

• The New Face of Doctor Who
• Putin’s Enemies Are Struggling to Unite
• Women Say They Were Pressured Into Long-Term Birth Control
• Scientists Are Finding Out Just How Toxic Your Stuff Is
• Boredom Makes Us Human
• John Mulaney Has What Late Night Needs
• The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Write to Katie Reilly at [email protected]

21 Reasons Why Homework Should Be Banned

The homework debate has strong arguments on both sides. Commonly-cited reasons why homework should be banned include the idea that it is often counterproductive, stifles students’ creativity, and limits their freedom outside the classroom.

Students already have up to 7 hours of schoolwork to complete 5 days a week; adding more contributes to increased anxiety, burnout, and overall poor performance.

But arguments for homework include the fact it does increase student grades (Cooper, Robinson & Patall, 2006), it instils discipline, and it helps to reinforce what was learned into long-term memory.

The following are common arguments for banning homework – note that this is an article written to stimulate debate points on the topic, so it only presents one perspective. For the other side of the argument, it’s worth checking out my article on the 27 pros and cons of homework .

Reasons Why Homework Should Be Banned

1. it contributes to increased anxiety.

If there’s one word that describes middle-school and high-school students, it’s anxiety. In my homework statistics article , I cite research showing that 74% of students cite homework as a source of stress.

They have so much to juggle, from the novelty of adolescence to the realization that they must soon start preparing for college and their life after (Pressman et al., 2015).

It’s a lot to manage, and adding homework that reduces their free time and makes them even more restricted is downright harmful. The natural outcome of this dogpile of pressure is anxiety, and many students often feel overwhelmed, both by the hours and hours of coursework in a day and the extensive homework they are assigned (Galloway, Conner & Pope, 2013).

Because teachers often don’t communicate with one another over curricula, major assignments can overlap such that students have to tackle numerous large projects at once, which contributes to severe anxiety over good grades.

In response to this, some students check out of school entirely, letting their academic future go to waste. While, of course, it’s not fair to strawman and say that homework is to blame for all these cases, it may indeed by a contributing factor.

2. It Offers Less Social Time

Homework cuts out free time. Children already spend the better part of their day learning in a school environment, and when they come home, they need to socialize.

Whether it’s family or friends, a social balance is important. Depending on the coursework they’re assigned, homework can detrimentally affect students’ social life, which feed back into more of our first gripe about homework: its anxiety-inducing nature.

Furthermore, social time is extremely important for children to grow up well-balanced and confident. If a child is highly intelligent (book smart) but lacks to social skills we might call street smarts , they may struggle in adulthood.

3. It Detracts from Play Time

Play is extremely important for children’s physical, social, and cognitive development . In fact, children naturally learn through play .

So, when children get home from school, they need a few hours to play. They’re actually learning when playing! If playing with friends, they’re learning social skills; but playing alone also stimulates creative and analytical thinking skills.

Play is also a different type of learning than the learning that commonly happens at school. So, allowing children to play at home gives their brain a break from ‘school learning’ and lets them learn through active and even relaxing methods.

4. It Discourages Physical Exercise and Contributes to Obesity

Exercise is an important part of life for everyone, but especially for children. Developing a positive self-image and disciplining oneself is an important skill to learn, one that becomes much more difficult when homework is in the picture.

Homework can demand a lot of attention that kids could be spending exercising or socializing. These two important life pursuits can be left by the wayside, leaving students feeling confused, depressed, and anxious about the future.

Physical exercise should be considered a key feature of a child’s holistic development. It helps keep children healthy, can reduce anxiety, and support healthy immune systems. It also helps with physical development such as supporting fine and gross motor skills .

In fact, some scholars (Ren et al., 2017) have even identified excessive homework as a contributing factor for childhood obesity.

5. It Disrupts Sleep Patterns

Everyone knows the trope of a college student staying up late to finish their homework or cram for a test.

While it would be unfair to credit homework exclusively for an unhealthy sleep schedule, the constant pressure to finish assignments on time often yields one of two results.

Students can either burn the midnight oil to make sure their homework is done, or they can check out of school entirely and ignore their academic interests. Neither is an acceptable way to live.

This point is particularly pertinent to teenagers. They are not lazy; teens need 12-13 hours of sleep every day because their bodies are changing so dramatically.

To pile additional homework on them that interferes with the circadian rhythm is not just unhelpful—it may be downright harmful (Yeo et al., 2020).

6. It Involves Less Guidance

If there’s one thing that’s beneficial about the in-person learning experience, it’s the ability to raise one’s hand and let the teacher know when something is unclear or difficult to understand.

That handheld process isn’t available for homework; in fact, homework matters little in the grand scheme of learning. It’s just busywork that’s supposed to help students consolidate their knowledge.

In reality, homework becomes something that students resent and can fill them with feelings of frustration—something that would be much more readily addressed if the same content was covered in-person with a teacher to guide the student through the assignment.

7. It’s Regularly Rote Learning

In most subjects, homework isn’t reflective of the skills students need to learn to thrive in the workforce. Instead, it often simply involves rote learning (repetition of tasks) that is not seen as the best way to learn.

A main goal of education is to train up vocational professionals with defined skills. But more often than not, homework winds up as a bland set of word problems that have no basis in the real world.

Walking through real-world examples under the guidance of a teacher is much more beneficial to student learning.

8. It Can Detract from a Love of Learning

If you know what it’s like to doze off during a boring class or meeting, then you can relate to the difficulty students have paying attention in class.

That motivation starts to dwindle when students must complete assignments on their own time, often under immense pressure.

It’s not a healthy way to inspire kids to learn about different subjects and develop a love of learning.

Students already need to sit through hours and hours of class on end in-person. This learning time should be used more effectively to eliminate the need for home.

When children finally get out of class at the end of the day, they need to socialize and exercise, not spend even longer staring at a book to complete a bunch of unhelpful practice questions.

9. It Convolutes the Subject

Another important consideration about homework is that it can often be counterproductive.

That’s because teachers don’t always use the full curriculum material for their teaching, and they may choose to develop their own homework rather than to use the resources offered by the curriculum provider.

This homework can often be off-subject, extremely niche, or unhelpful in explaining a subject that students are studying.

Students who don’t understand a subject and don’t have resources to rely on will eventually give up. That risk becomes even more prevalent when you factor in the scope, complexity, and type of assignment.

Students need to be taught in a safe environment where they can feel free to ask questions and learn at their own pace. Of course, there’s no fairytale way to perfect this ideal, but what is clear is that homework is not beneficial to the learning environment for many students.

10. It’s Not What Kids Want

Lastly, homework should be banned because it’s generally not what students want. From elementary to college level, most students harbor some sort of resentment towards homework.

It might be easy to dismiss this to say that the students “aren’t living in the real world.” The truth of the matter is that the real world is a lot more nuanced, creative, and diverse than the repetitive, broad, and often stagnant homework.

It’s easy to understand why most students wish that more time in school had been spent on learning how to live rather than trying to figure out how many apples Johnny had. Subjects like car maintenance, entrepreneurship, computer skills, socialization, networking, tax filing, finances, and survival are touched on at best and ignored at worst.

It’s not enough for students to be able to regurgitate information on a piece of paper; in the end, the education system should teach them how to be self-sufficient, something that might be much easier to do if resources were divested from homework and poured into more beneficial subject material.

Consider these 11 Additional Reasons

• Decreases time with parents – Homework may prevent parents and children from spending quality time together.
• Hidden costs – Families often feel pressure to purchase internet and other resources to help their children to complete their homework.
• Is inequitable – some children have parents to help them while others don’t. Similarly, some children have internet access to help while others don’t (see: Kralovec & Buell, 2001).
• Easy to cheat – Unsupervised homework time makes it easy for children to simply cheat on their work so they can get on with play time!
• Lack of downtime – Children need time where they aren’t doing anything. Time that is unstructured helps them to develop hobbies and interests .
• Detracts from reading – Children could be spending their time reading books and developing their imaginations rather than working on repetitive homework tasks.
• Take up parental time – Parents, who have just spent all day working, are increasingly expected to spend their time doing ‘teaching’ with their children at home.
• Discourages club membership – If children are too busy with homework, they may not be able to join clubs and sporting groups that can help them make friends and develop extracurricular skills.
• Makes it hard for college students to make a living – In college, where homework is extensive, students often can’t juggle homework with their weekend and night-time jobs. As a result, it pushes them further into student poverty.
• Contributes to poor work-life culture – From early ages, we’re sending a message to children that they should take their work home with them. This can spill over into the workplace, where they’ll be expected to continue working for their company even after the workday ends.
• Can reinforce faulty learning – When children learn in isolation during homework time, they may end up practicing their work completely wrong! They need intermittent support to make sure their practice is taking them down the right path.

Students may need to demonstrate their understanding of a topic to progress; that, at least, is a reflection of the real world. What’s not helpful is when students are peppered day and night with information that they need to regurgitate on a piece of paper.

For positive outcomes to come from homework, parents and teachers need to work together. It depends a lot on the type of homework provided as well as the age of the student and the need to balance homework with time to do other things in your life.

Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003.  Review of educational research ,  76 (1), 1-62.

Galloway, M., Conner, J., & Pope, D. (2013). Nonacademic effects of homework in privileged, high-performing high schools.  The journal of experimental education ,  81 (4), 490-510. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.745469

Kralovec, E., & Buell, J. (2001).  The end of homework: How homework disrupts families, overburdens children, and limits learning . Beacon Press.

Pressman, R. M., Sugarman, D. B., Nemon, M. L., Desjarlais, J., Owens, J. A., & Schettini-Evans, A. (2015). Homework and family stress: With consideration of parents’ self confidence, educational level, and cultural background.  The American Journal of Family Therapy ,  43 (4), 297-313. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2015.1061407

Ren, H., Zhou, Z., Liu, W., Wang, X., & Yin, Z. (2017). Excessive homework, inadequate sleep, physical inactivity and screen viewing time are major contributors to high paediatric obesity.  Acta Paediatrica ,  106 (1), 120-127. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.13640

Yeo, S. C., Tan, J., Lo, J. C., Chee, M. W., & Gooley, J. J. (2020). Associations of time spent on homework or studying with nocturnal sleep behavior and depression symptoms in adolescents from Singapore.  Sleep Health ,  6 (6), 758-766. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleh.2020.04.011

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Animism Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 10 Magical Thinking Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Social-Emotional Learning (Definition, Examples, Pros & Cons)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ What is Educational Psychology?

5 thoughts on “21 Reasons Why Homework Should Be Banned”

very helpful website thanks

my topic on publics speaking is on banning homework it really helps

Very helpful cheers mate

This really helped my debate team

It is very helpful for me.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

School Life Balance , Tips for Online Students

The Pros and Cons of Homework

Updated: December 7, 2023

Published: January 23, 2020

Homework is a word that most students dread hearing. After hours upon hours of sitting in class , the last thing we want is more schoolwork over our precious weekends. While it’s known to be a staple of traditional schooling, homework has also become a rather divise topic. Some feel as though homework is a necessary part of school, while others believe that the time could be better invested. Should students have homework? Have a closer look into the arguments on both sides to decide for yourself.

Photo by  energepic.com  from  Pexels

Why should students have homework, 1. homework encourages practice.

Many people believe that one of the positive effects of homework is that it encourages the discipline of practice. While it may be time consuming and boring compared to other activities, repetition is needed to get better at skills. Homework helps make concepts more clear, and gives students more opportunities when starting their career .

2. Homework Gets Parents Involved

Homework can be something that gets parents involved in their children’s lives if the environment is a healthy one. A parent helping their child with homework makes them take part in their academic success, and allows for the parent to keep up with what the child is doing in school. It can also be a chance to connect together.

3. Homework Teaches Time Management

Homework is much more than just completing the assigned tasks. Homework can develop time management skills , forcing students to plan their time and make sure that all of their homework assignments are done on time. By learning to manage their time, students also practice their problem-solving skills and independent thinking. One of the positive effects of homework is that it forces decision making and compromises to be made.

4. Homework Opens A Bridge Of Communication

Homework creates a connection between the student, the teacher, the school, and the parents. It allows everyone to get to know each other better, and parents can see where their children are struggling. In the same sense, parents can also see where their children are excelling. Homework in turn can allow for a better, more targeted educational plan for the student.

5. Homework Allows For More Learning Time

Homework allows for more time to complete the learning process. School hours are not always enough time for students to really understand core concepts, and homework can counter the effects of time shortages, benefiting students in the long run, even if they can’t see it in the moment.

6. Homework Reduces Screen Time

Many students in North America spend far too many hours watching TV. If they weren’t in school, these numbers would likely increase even more. Although homework is usually undesired, it encourages better study habits and discourages spending time in front of the TV. Homework can be seen as another extracurricular activity, and many families already invest a lot of time and money in different clubs and lessons to fill up their children’s extra time. Just like extracurricular activities, homework can be fit into one’s schedule.

The Other Side: Why Homework Is Bad

1. homework encourages a sedentary lifestyle.

Should students have homework? Well, that depends on where you stand. There are arguments both for the advantages and the disadvantages of homework.

While classroom time is important, playground time is just as important. If children are given too much homework, they won’t have enough playtime, which can impact their social development and learning. Studies have found that those who get more play get better grades in school , as it can help them pay closer attention in the classroom.

Children are already sitting long hours in the classroom, and homework assignments only add to these hours. Sedentary lifestyles can be dangerous and can cause health problems such as obesity. Homework takes away from time that could be spent investing in physical activity.

2. Homework Isn’t Healthy In Every Home

While many people that think homes are a beneficial environment for children to learn, not all homes provide a healthy environment, and there may be very little investment from parents. Some parents do not provide any kind of support or homework help, and even if they would like to, due to personal barriers, they sometimes cannot. Homework can create friction between children and their parents, which is one of the reasons why homework is bad .

3. Homework Adds To An Already Full-Time Job

School is already a full-time job for students, as they generally spend over 6 hours each day in class. Students also often have extracurricular activities such as sports, music, or art that are just as important as their traditional courses. Adding on extra hours to all of these demands is a lot for children to manage, and prevents students from having extra time to themselves for a variety of creative endeavors. Homework prevents self discovery and having the time to learn new skills outside of the school system. This is one of the main disadvantages of homework.

4. Homework Has Not Been Proven To Provide Results

Endless surveys have found that homework creates a negative attitude towards school, and homework has not been found to be linked to a higher level of academic success.

The positive effects of homework have not been backed up enough. While homework may help some students improve in specific subjects, if they have outside help there is no real proof that homework makes for improvements.

It can be a challenge to really enforce the completion of homework, and students can still get decent grades without doing their homework. Extra school time does not necessarily mean better grades — quality must always come before quantity.

Accurate practice when it comes to homework simply isn’t reliable. Homework could even cause opposite effects if misunderstood, especially since the reliance is placed on the student and their parents — one of the major reasons as to why homework is bad. Many students would rather cheat in class to avoid doing their homework at home, and children often just copy off of each other or from what they read on the internet.

5. Homework Assignments Are Overdone

The general agreement is that students should not be given more than 10 minutes a day per grade level. What this means is that a first grader should be given a maximum of 10 minutes of homework, while a second grader receives 20 minutes, etc. Many students are given a lot more homework than the recommended amount, however.

On average, college students spend as much as 3 hours per night on homework . By giving too much homework, it can increase stress levels and lead to burn out. This in turn provides an opposite effect when it comes to academic success.

The pros and cons of homework are both valid, and it seems as though the question of ‘‘should students have homework?’ is not a simple, straightforward one. Parents and teachers often are found to be clashing heads, while the student is left in the middle without much say.

It’s important to understand all the advantages and disadvantages of homework, taking both perspectives into conversation to find a common ground. At the end of the day, everyone’s goal is the success of the student.

Related Articles

Thanks for visiting! GoodRx is not available outside of the United States. If you are trying to access this site from the United States and believe you have received this message in error, please reach out to [email protected] and let us know.

Why homework has merit and can be a force for good

The brouhaha about the need to abolish school homework, as if it was a recently invented form of cruelty to children, needs perspective and reasoned discussion.

Homework is an important bridge between school and the home. It allows parents to be part of a child’s educational journey and to contribute in a meaningful way.

I come, not to bury homework, but to praise it.

Recent discussions about cancelling homework for good seem to be focused almost entirely on the needs of time-poor parents, rather than the benefits to students.

In spite of the protestations that schoolwork – set by teachers to complement classroom learning – must be abolished with immediate effect, the facts are that there are myriad benefits accruing to your child from homework that we should not lose sight of.

Painting homework as the enemy of busy children misses the bigger and more nuanced picture. The idea that it should be cancelled outright seems like a knee-jerk reaction to what amounts to a modern family time-management issue. And it must be noted that generations of children have survived the imposition of homework, and many have even thrived.

Bruce Springsteen concert in Cork: Tell us your verdict

‘I do God’: London mayor Sadiq Khan on religious faith, meeting the Pope and the fight to save the planet

Billie Eilish: Hit Me Hard and Soft review – Her third album is not quite a genre bender, but this star is growing in sophistication

Rebel Spanish nuns split with Vatican amid property spat

This line of thinking also misses the whole purpose of home-based assignments.

Homework is an important bridge between school and the home. It allows parents to be part of a child’s educational journey and to contribute in a meaningful way. It keeps the channels of communication about what happens in school open, an important consideration.

[  Homework: ‘If educators saw the stress it causes, they would be horrified’  ]

To suggest that a broad array of extracurricular activities should take precedence entirely over home-based school work is misguided at best. It also sidesteps the fact that many children in homes where money is too tight to mention will be the biggest losers here, as they won’t be spending their time being ferried from one draughty hall to another for ballet or tai chi lessons.

Comparing attending school to going to work as an adult misses the point by a country mile, and amounts to an erroneous justification for such a move. Education is a lifelong journey. If you demonise homework you are giving a child the message that schoolwork/learning is a negative thing. Learning is a wonderful thing. That’s a really worthwhile message to pass on to your children.

However, that is not to say that there is, or at least should be, an optimum amount of work set by a teacher that is age-dependent. If you haven’t 20-30 minutes to spare with your smallie, then the issue is a lifestyle one set up by you, rather than the school one. I am perplexed by parents who believe that their child’s formal education is solely the remit of the school. There is only so much one teacher with up to 30 pupils in a class can do. Issues with a child’s ability to learn will likely be picked up faster on a one-to-one basis at home rather than in a busy classroom.

[  How homework can help children feel happier  ]

Conversely, if you have a very fast learner, you can encourage them to do more to ensure they don’t get bored and lose interest.

Additionally, homework tasks can allow the parent to expand the content to include other ideas and different content. Homework also teaches your child the importance of beginning and finishing a task, a worthwhile life skill.

As a parent I have enjoyed being part of my child’s learning journey. I have fond memories of a little head at the kitchen table calling out “Mum” followed by questions about the meaning or spelling of a word. “Why is the sky blue” stands out vividly as a taxing question that we both had fun establishing the facts for, compliments of Mr Google.

Learning can be fun and that is an important message for parents to give their children. Parents are key educators too. The importance of a visit to the local library and the luxury of time to read a book is arguably more beneficial to a child than contorting their fingers around the neck of a violin. Time to stop, to think and just to be is underrated in modern life, where being busy all the time is considered desirable.

That being said, I think some reworking of homework is overdue. The tedium of completing workbooks being a case in point. Teachers should be encouraged to set stimulating and more creative tasks as homework also. The very idea of written wellbeing homework is faintly ridiculous. It doesn’t take a genius to say “Homework this evening is to dance for 15 minutes to your favourite music.”

[  Why do parents allow children to continue doing homework when they can just opt them out?  ]

The proliferation of after-school activities is also an undoubted indicator of affluence. You would need to ask why one fairly small child needs to attend ballet, violin, swimming, piano, GAA, chess, martial arts, drama, art, French and the rest. Bragging rights for parents shouldn’t form part of the equation, but they often do.

If homework is abolished in primary schools, as sure as night follows day, it will also be dropped at second level too. Given that the Irish examination system is a written one – with many subjects based on essay-style answers – the inability to write well and succinctly will be an impediment to success. Practice does make perfect.

Traditionally, teachers work fewer hours to compensate for time spent correcting homework. There is nothing to stop any parent dropping a note to the teacher to say that no homework was completed last night as we were otherwise engaged.

The bottom line here is that if extracurricular activities are preventing your child from doing homework, the issue is perhaps the out-of-school schedule rather than the homework.

IN THIS SECTION

Carl mullan: ‘it’s such a shock to the system becoming a parent’, ‘i would like now to share my tips on how you too can become an unbearably smug runner’, ‘it’s great to be able to do kidney dialysis in my sleep . . . i can live my life with this’, whooping cough q&a: what is the disease, and what should i do if my child has it, parent’s benefit scheme: option of taking leave remains outside the grasp of many fathers, i visited singapore to see why it is ranked as the top education system in the world. here’s what i learned, bambie thug should not have been making statements on ireland’s behalf, south dublin tennis club slams student accommodation plan, irish workers among the least productive in europe, study indicates, case against dublin firefighter accused of rape in boston to be moved to higher court, moving back to ireland would mean working till 10pm, no home of my own and bad coffee, latest stories, young people misjudge older generations’ concern about climate crisis, notes esri research, leeds crush norwich to move to within one game of a premier league return, ‘not winning makes you want it more’: xander schauffele bounces back with 62 to lead pga, religious youth leader jailed for defilement and sexual exploitation of girl, violence against politicians is corrosive of democracy.

• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Information
• Cookie Settings
• Community Standards

• Close Menu Search
• Book Reviews
• Music Reviews
• Co-Curricular Clubs
• Campus Ministry

• The Disproportionate Rates of Homelessness Among Minorities
• Anti-Racism
• Artistic Expressions of Social Justice and Racial Equality

Why (Most) Homework Should Be Banned

The 30-minute rule is there to justify giving a lot of homework

Anthony Malcolm ‘23 , Staff Writer December 8, 2022

There are plenty of reasons why (most) homework should be banned. I’ll start out with some general facts and look at homework in general, then go into some detail about our school.

Stanford conducted a study surveying over 4,300 students in 10 high performing high schools in California. More than 70% of the students said they were “often or always stressed over schoolwork,” with 56% claiming that homework was the main stressor. But here’s the kicker: Less than 1% said homework was not a stressor. 

The researchers then asked the students if they had exhibited symptoms of stress like headaches, exhaustion, sleep deprivation, weight loss, and stomach problems. More than 80% of the students reported at least one stress related symptom recently and 44% claimed they experienced 3 or more symptoms. The study also found that students who spend a lot of time working on homework experience more stress, physical health problems, and a lack of balance in their lives. The study claimed that any more than 2 hours of homework per night was counterproductive, and that the students who spent too much time on homework were more likely to not participate in activities and hobbies, and stop seeing friends and family. 

A smaller NYU study claimed that students at elite high schools are susceptible to chronic stress, emotional exhaustion, and alcohol and drug abuse. About half of the students said they received at least 3 hours of homework a night on top of being pressured to take college level classes and participate in extracurricular activities (sound familiar?). The study claims that many of the students felt they were being worked as hard as adults, and they said that their workload seemed inappropriate for their development level. The study reported that the students felt that they had little time for relaxing and hobbies. More than two thirds of students said they used alcohol or drugs, primarily marijuana, to cope with the stress.

Back to the Stanford study for a second; many of the students claimed that the homework was “pointless” or “mindless.” The study argues that homework should have a purpose and benefit, which should be to cultivate learning. One of the main reasons is that school feels like a full-time job at this point. We, as in BC High students, are in school from 8:25 till 2:40; most of us have some sort of extracurricular activity on top of that, and most of us have significant commutes, which means we are getting home much later. On top of a rigorous day at school, an afterschool activity, and a commute, we have to deal with a varying amount of homework every night. Sometimes it is 2 hours, sometimes 3, sometimes even 4. I will give you an example of a day in my life last year to provide a specific example, because we are not a one size fits all community. 

I live in Middleboro and Bridgewater, so I ride the train to school which takes 50 minutes to an hour. A spring day last year would start by waking up at 5:30 and then leaving my house to get to the train at 6:30-6:35, getting on the train at 6:50, getting off the train at 7:50, and arriving at the school before classes started at 8:20. I would go through the school day and stay after for track practice. After track, I would most likely get on the train at 5:00 and get home at 6:15. I would eat dinner, shower, and then start my homework around 7:30-8, and usually I would finish somewhere between 10:30ish to 11:30ish. Can you see how that can be misconstrued as a full-time job?

Some of you might be thinking (especially any teacher reading this), why didn’t you use the 30-minute rule? Well, because most (and I mean MOST) of the time the 30-minute rule is an ineffective rule that justifies giving students a lot of homework. If you use the 30-minute rule and don’t finish a homework assignment, it still has to be completed sometime, and you’ll be behind in class. It is only effective when a teacher plans for the 30-minute rule and tells you to stop at 30 minutes to get an idea of how long an assignment takes their students. The 30-minute rule is there to justify giving a lot of homework because if you say in class that the homework took a long time, you will probably be told about the 30-minute rule. But if you used the 30-minute rule, you would have an unfinished homework assignment which means, depending on the class, you would be lost and behind, and you would still have to do it at some point. If you should have to justify giving a lot of homework, then it is probably too much. 

Parker, Clifton B. “Stanford Research Shows Pitfalls of Homework.” Stanford University , 10 Mar. 2014, http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/march/too-much-homework-031014.html . 

Communications, NYU Web. NYU Study Examines Top High School Students’ Stress and Coping Mechanisms . http://www.nyu.edu/content/nyu/en/about/news-publications/news/2015/august/nyu

-study-examines-top-high-school-students-stress-and-coping-mechanisms . 

Sex Scene Discourse

Why Can’t You Get into College?

Behind the Commencement Speaker Selection Process

Be Worried?

Is the House System worth it?

Why JUG will Never Change

Should Parents Check Our Phones?

Hoodies in BC High?

Toll Booths: A Rebuttal

Why Do We Chase Success?

The Eyes and Ears of BC High.

Comments (0)

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Study Skills

No More Homework: 12 Reasons We Should Get Rid of It Completely

Last Updated: May 4, 2024 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by wikiHow staff writer, Finn Kobler . Finn Kobler graduated from USC in 2022 with a BFA in Writing for Screen/Television. He is a two-time California State Champion and record holder in Original Prose/Poetry, a 2018 finalist for the Los Angeles Youth Poet Laureate, and he's written micro-budget films that have been screened in over 150 theaters nationwide. Growing up, Finn spent every summer helping his family's nonprofit arts program, Showdown Stage Company, empower people through accessible media. He hopes to continue that mission with his writing at wikiHow. There are 12 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 133,353 times. Learn more...

The amount of homework students are given has increased dramatically in the 21st century, which has sparked countless debates over homework’s overall value. While some have been adamant that homework is an essential part of a good education, it’s been proven that too much homework negatively affects students’ mood, classroom performance, and overall well-being. In addition, a heavy homework load can stress families and teachers. Here are 12 reasons why homework should be banned (or at least heavily reduced).

School is already a full-time job.

• For years, teachers have followed the “10-minute rule” giving students roughly 10 minutes of homework per grade level. However, recent studies have shown students are completing 3+ hours of homework a night well before their senior years even begin. [2] X Trustworthy Source American Psychological Association Leading scientific and professional organization of licensed psychologists Go to source

Homework negatively affects students’ health.

Homework interferes with student’s opportunities to socialize.

Homework hinders students’ chances to learn new things.

Homework lowers students’ enthusiasm for school.

Homework can lower academic performance.

Homework cuts into family time.

Homework is stressful for teachers.

Homework is often irrelevant and punitive.

• There are even studies that have shown homework in primary school has no correlation with classroom performance whatsoever. [9] X Research source

Homework encourages cheating.

Homework is inequitable.

Other countries have banned homework with great results.

• There are even some U.S. schools that have adopted this approach with success. [13] X Research source

Community Q&A

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://www.edutopia.org/no-proven-benefits
• ↑ https://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/03/homework
• ↑ https://healthier.stanfordchildrens.org/en/health-hazards-homework/
• ↑ https://teensneedsleep.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/galloway-nonacademic-effects-of-homework-in-privileged-high-performing-high-schools.pdf
• ↑ https://time.com/4466390/homework-debate-research/
• ↑ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220485.2022.2075506?role=tab&scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=vece20
• ↑ https://kappanonline.org/teacher-stress-balancing-demands-resources-mccarthy/
• ↑ https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-life-homework-pros-cons-20180807-story.html
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6294446/
• ↑ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/homework-inequality-parents-schedules-grades/485174/
• ↑ https://www.bbc.com/news/education-37716005
• ↑ https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-homework-its-the-new-thing-in-u-s-schools-11544610600

About This Article

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Did this article help you?

Anonymous ..

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

• Ethics & Leadership
• Fact-Checking
• Media Literacy
• The Craig Newmark Center
• Reporting & Editing
• Ethics & Trust
• Tech & Tools
• Business & Work
• Educators & Students
• Training Catalog
• Custom Teaching
• For ACES Members
• All Categories
• Broadcast & Visual Journalism
• Fact-Checking & Media Literacy
• In-newsroom
• Memphis, Tenn.
• Minneapolis, Minn.
• St. Petersburg, Fla.
• Washington, D.C.
• Poynter ACES Introductory Certificate in Editing
• Poynter ACES Intermediate Certificate in Editing
• Ethics & Trust Articles
• Get Ethics Advice
• Fact-Checking Articles
• International Fact-Checking Day
• Teen Fact-Checking Network
• International
• Media Literacy Training
• MediaWise Resources
• Ambassadors
• MediaWise in the News

Support responsible news and fact-based information today!

The meaning, history and political rhetoric surrounding the term abortion ‘ban’

Experts say ‘ban’ has emerged as shorthand for nearly all abortion prohibitions. The blunt term often leaves room for political spin.

Ban: Merriam-Webster  defines  it as “a legal or formal prohibition.”

But in the 2024 election cycle — the first general election since Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that enshrined a constitutional right to an abortion, was  overturned  — the term has morphed into polarizing political rhetoric. “Ban” has become synonymous with abortion and the wave of anti-abortion laws enacted in states across the country.

For example, on President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign website, the  abortion policy page’s  title reads: “Donald Trump wants to ban abortion nationwide. Re-elect Joe Biden to stop him and protect reproductive freedom.”

Trump appointed three of the U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe. After years of inconsistency, Trump  most recently  has said that laws on abortion should be left to the states and that he wouldn’t sign a national abortion ban.

Many Democrats and abortion rights activists have also zeroed in on down-ballot Republicans, accusing them of supporting abortion “bans,” even if their position allows for some access.

“Yesterday, we celebrated Mother’s Day. Today, I remind you that politicians like Bernie Moreno, who supports a national abortion ban, don’t want moms making their own healthcare decisions. Abortion rights are on Ohio’s ballot again in 2024,” Ohio Democrat Allison Russo wrote May 13  on X .

Moreno, who has Trump’s support, is a Republican running for Senate in Ohio against Democratic incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown. Moreno  has said  that he would vote for a 15-week national abortion ban.

Political discourse experts say “ban” has emerged as shorthand for nearly all abortion prohibitions. The blunt term, nuanced in its myriad interpretations, often leaves room for political spin.

What exactly is a ban?

“Ban” is not a medical term; people across the political spectrum on abortion define it differently.

The word has two main rhetorical functions, political discourse experts said. When people talk to like-minded people about a particular issue, it can reinforce the group’s beliefs. Or, it can label opponents as “extreme.”

“For example, when Joe Biden talks about an assault weapon ban, he’s not trying to convert skeptics — he’s signaling to people who already agree with them that they’re on the same team,” said Ryan Skinnell, an associate professor of rhetoric and writing at San Jose State University. “But the other way ‘ban’ works is to identify someone you disagree with as extreme. Groups who want to keep certain books out of libraries, for instance, rarely describe themselves as in support of book banning. Their opponents adopt that language.”

This dual usage reflects in the abortion fight. Abortion-rights activists use “ban” to signal an infringement on personal freedom and autonomy over medical decisions. Anti-abortion proponents may use “ban” to signal a protection of fetal life. For example, when introducing legislation that ban abortion at various stages,  Republican   politicians  have often framed the bills as moral imperatives that protect unborn life.

Peter Loge, a George Washington University professor who directs the school’s Project on Ethics in Political Communication, said ban has historically meant “to eliminate” or “not have,” but politicians employ a strategic ambiguity that allows listeners to assign their own meaning. Loge, who served as a senior adviser in former President Barack Obama’s Food and Drug Administration, said Obama did this with one of his campaign slogans: “Change We Can Believe In.”

“Well, what does ‘change’ mean? Clearly, it means whatever he thinks it means, but as a listener you will ascribe it to mean whatever you think it means,” Loge said. “So, if I think most abortions should be illegal and in some cases it’s OK, I can support a ban, because it’s a ban with exceptions. The listener plugs in whatever caveats they prefer and ascribes them to the speaker. This is a technique as far back as Aristotle, who wrote that the listener provides the reasoning for themselves.”

Loge, like Skinnell, said “ban” is often used in politics to showcase extremism and the threat of something being taken away.

“It’s the rhetoric of anger. ‘They want to take your rights from you. … Now it’s an ideological divide and it works because we’re going to be more motivated to vote,” Loge said. “People are more concerned about losing something they have than they are interested in getting something new. We are risk-averse.”

Nathan Stormer, a rhetoric professor at the University of Maine and an expert in abortion rhetoric, said the term usually shows up when people refer to making abortion illegal in pregnancy’s earlier stages. But, he added, although common usage typically refers to a first trimester threshold, there is “no set of rules.”

“Because it is not a consistently used term, I think when people do not specify what they are referring to, others may take them to mean at conception or very early, but one has to inquire about context,” Stormer wrote in an email.

How abortion ban rhetoric evolved

Before the 1970s, there was little discussion about abortion bans.

Although legal abortion existed in various states at various stages before the  Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973,  the ruling’s enshrinement of abortion rights across the country, helped galvanize opposition and mobilize anti-abortion groups.

“There were book bans, pornography bans, dancing bans, and so on. But even most conservative politicians and church groups weren’t especially concerned with abortion as an issue, and there was virtually no concerted political interest in bans,” Skinnell, from San Jose University, said. “That began to change with Richard Nixon.”

Skinnell said the former president’s advisers, in coordination with evangelical Christian church leaders, determined they could connect abortion to left-wing social movements, such as feminism, by linking them consistently in speeches and campaign materials.

“The idea of abortion bans came directly out of that partnership,” Skinnell said, “and it gathered steam in right-wing and conservative circles throughout the next few decades.”

Republicans further popularized the term in the mid-1990s, when they advocated for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which President George W. Bush  signed into law  in 2003. The campaign to pass that legislation, experts said, introduced the term “ban” as the abortion restriction’s “stated intent.”

Political rhetoric experts said much of the medical literature and media coverage before Roe v. Wade often used terms such as “illegal” because abortion was considered a criminal act in most states.

“Even in the early stages of criminalizing abortion in the U.S., I don’t think ban was a common term,” Stormer said. “When a restriction is being put in place where before there was not one, people tend to resort to the word ban.”

Emily Winderman, a University of Minnesota professor specializing in the rhetorical study of health and medicine, said that over time abortion “bans” have manifested  as “incremental” restrictions throughout gestational development to the complete prohibitions seen in multiple states today.

For instance, she said, “heartbeat bills,” which typically refer to laws that make abortion illegal as early as six weeks of pregnancy, were controversial when they emerged around 2010, but have become more prevalent since the Trump administration and Roe’s overturning.

Winderman also said bans can appear via code and ordinance restrictions, such as banning  the type of use for a particular piece of real estate — making abortion clinics impossible to place.

“It’s important to understand bans as a complex strategy that includes gestational limits as well as limitations on who can provide care and where,” she said.

Shifting abortion laws across the U.S. have made “ban” an increasingly common term.  Forty-one states  now ban abortion at different points in pregnancy — 14 enforce total bans, three enforce six-week bans and others restrict abortion before fetal viability.

Stormer, from the University of Maine, pointed to Arizona’s Supreme Court reinstating an 1864 law that completely banned abortion. (It  has since been repealed. ) At the time the law was written, conception was not well understood, and there was no clear sense of fertilization or how it worked.

“Reinstating that law was a great example of how the conflict over abortion has remained steady and largely recognizable, but its terms and understandings have been constantly moving, which says something,” Stormer said. “So, specific words do important work, but they do not capture what is happening rhetorically, in my opinion. The moving terminologies are the waves crashing, but the tides are the thing.”

This fact check was originally published by PolitiFact , which is part of the Poynter Institute. See the sources for this fact check here .

Nobel Prize winner Maria Ressa, experts on democracy and AI to lead GlobalFact as keynote speakers

Other speakers at the fact-checking summit include Steve Levitsky, Nikita Roy and Craig Silverman

Opinion | Q&A: Fox News foreign correspondent Trey Yingst on the perils of covering war

Yingst, 30, has spent the past several years in some of the most dangerous places in the world.

Opinion | Planning a town hall with candidates? Try a reverse town hall instead.

They spend so much time talking. It’s their turn to listen.

Study shows lack of trust among Hispanics in local English-language news organizations

The study focused on the Raleigh-Durham community and specifically sought to discover what barriers non-English speakers face in accessing news.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Start your day informed and inspired.

Get the Poynter newsletter that's right for you.

• Manage Account
• Website Survey
• Things to Do
• Public Notices
• Help Center

Dallas, don’t stomp on a small business with horse-drawn carriage ban

The city should phase out this type of service without being heavy-handed..

By Dallas Morning News Editorial

2:00 AM on May 15, 2024 CDT

Major cities like San Antonio and Philadelphia have been talking about banning horse-drawn carriages from their streets. Now the conversation has clip-clopped its way to Dallas City Hall .

If you live or work in the downtown Dallas area, you’ve probably seen these carriages trotting down the street with couples or groups of tourists aboard. It’s not a burgeoning industry, however. In the whole city, North Star Carriage is the only permitted operator, with five carriage permits, and it has been the sole operator for many years.

A City Council committee recently recommended that Dallas ban horse-drawn carriages. If the full Dallas council moves forward with a ban, it should do so in a measured way, without trampling a small business in the process.

Horse-powered carriage rides may be quaint and charming, but they are a remnant of the past that we can do without. Some council members and residents say they are concerned about the safety and health of the horses, though North Star Carriage disputes that its horses are mistreated.

Get smart opinions on the topics North Texans care about.

By signing up you agree to our  Terms of Service  and  Privacy Policy

It strikes us as heavy-handed to pass a regulation that would quash a single small business without evidence that it is doing something egregious. If the city is going to ban horse-drawn carriages, it should look for a way to allow North Star Carriage to continue operating under a grandfather clause.

Some of the arguments against horse-drawn carriages in Dallas seem overblown. We question whether five permitted carriages contribute greatly to the frenzy on Dallas roads.

Sure, horses can be unpredictable sometimes, but every Dallas driver knows humans can be, too. We agree with council member Paul Ridley’s assessment that this isn’t a major traffic issue.

At any rate, incidents involving horse-drawn carriages seem to be few and far between. Council member Adam Bazaldua cited a few examples of incidents from his own research that occurred in the last 10 years, but a couple of them were in Highland Park, this newspaper reported . City staff in December said that they had no records of accidents involving North Star.

Others have argued that the practice is cruel, but opinions are mixed. This newspaper spoke with three equine experts who said carriage horses can be kept healthy and treated humanely.

Dallas tourism would survive just fine if horse-drawn carriages were to ride off into the sunset after a ban. But absent any proof that North Star Carriage is violating health and safety rules, then it should be allowed to continue to operate.

We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here . If you have problems with the form, you can submit via email at [email protected]

Dallas Morning News Editorial . Dallas Morning News editorials are written by the paper's Editorial Board and serve as the voice and view of the paper. The board considers a broad range of topics and is overseen by the Editorial Page Editor.

New Dallas convention center has developers scrambling

Dallas’ Starck Club’s 40th anniversary reunion: ‘A Temple of Future People’ visit the past

Feds find ketamine disguised as children’s board games at DFW Airport

2 more facing murder charge following fatal prom after-party shooting in Fort Worth

Colin Allred, unknown to many voters, launches early ad campaign in race against Ted Cruz

Should babies, smelly passengers be on a no-fly list? Dealing with difficult air travelers

Is it time to finally ban screaming babies from the plane? How about argumentative passengers? Or people who smell bad?

Those are serious questions. With the busy summer travel season right around the corner, Congress is considering a nationwide no-fly list for disruptive passengers.

Banning the biggest troublemakers in the skies, as the Protection from Abusive Passengers Act proposes, is an idea worth considering. So maybe this is the right time to figure out who belongs on that list.

Check out  Elliott Confidential , the newsletter the travel industry doesn't want you to read. Each issue is filled with breaking news, deep insights, and exclusive strategies for becoming a better traveler. But don't tell anyone!

Here's the official answer: Under the law, passengers would land in the no-fly database for one of several offenses, including a conviction for assaulting, threatening, or intimidating a crew member of an aircraft.

Unofficially, passengers have far different opinions on who should get grounded. And they are not shy about creating their own no-fly list, sometimes on the fly. Consider the recent Frontier Airlines flight in which passengers voted to remove an unruly passenger . Talk about frontier justice.

But making a "no-fly" list of disruptive passengers may be impractical when you start thinking about it. There may be a more effective way to deal with difficult air travelers.

Chaos at the airport! Pro strategies for surviving the next air travel meltdown

AI, self-service are taking over travel. Will everything become a DIY experience?

Should we ban babies? 

Babies – especially the screaming ones – are high on the list of in-flight annoyances. And those of you without kids will probably add, "Is there any other kind?" Who can forget that viral video of an adult passenger on a recent Southwest Airlines flight losing it because of a screaming infant?

Under normal circumstances, air travelers are far less vocal about getting rid of babies on planes. Some travelers have told me that well-behaved children should be able to fly. But responsible parents ought to carefully consider their air travel plans if they know they have a cranky little flier. 

It becomes a much more interesting debate when you ask if babies should be allowed in first class. Passengers have quietly signaled their support for child-free premium cabins, or at least a kids' section in the back of the plane.

Bottom line: Banning all babies is impractical and probably also illegal. But it wouldn't surprise me to see a viral video incident or two this summer involving irresponsible parents getting kicked off a flight.

How about disruptive passengers?

Misbehaving passengers is another category of a bannable flier. And here, too, it's clear that air travelers have a broader definition than lawmakers.  

"Being disruptive in what could be a dangerous situation is unacceptable," said William Muller, a restaurant manager from Miami who travels to Europe frequently. "If someone has so little self-control that they can't wait until the plane lands to address whatever issue they have, then they should not be allowed to fly."

Mueller defines disruptive as a passenger who is so out of control that the plane has to be diverted or resulting in the passenger needing to be removed from the plane before takeoff. But he says other air travelers may have a more inclusive definition of disruptive.

Refunds: Why are travel refunds taking so long now? Here are some tips to get your money back.

What if? What if summer travel isn't as hectic as expected? Why last-minute plans could work out.

They do. If by "disruptive" you mean the person sitting next to me who can't stop talking, then we could be talking about half the plane. What about the guy who keeps hitting up the flight attendant for another drink – or hitting on the flight attendant ?

Here, too, we're entering dangerous airspace. Do we need to pass a psych evaluation to get permission to fly? 

Should air travelers pass the sniff test?

Of course, it's not just behavior that can get you banned. It's also how you smell. Or look. Every summer, there's at least one well-publicized incident involving a passenger wearing an inappropriate T-shirt. Flight attendants order the passenger to change shirts, the passenger makes a TikTok about it, and life goes on.

Smells are more complicated. How do you define a bad smell? Is it someone wearing too much perfume? The wrong perfume? Someone who skipped a shower that morning? Someone who doesn't believe in showering? Flight attendants have to make that call quickly when everyone is piling on board. And then, if you happen to be stuck next to someone who stinks, you have to deal with it. 

Story continues below.

How about sick passengers? They shouldn't fly, either, if they're contagious. Janet Ruth Heller recently sat in front of two passengers who were coughing and sneezing the entire flight. 

"They were not wearing masks, and they did not cover their mouths with their hands," Heller, a frequent traveler and retired college professor from Portage, Michigan, recalled. "I caught their disease and was very ill for a month."

So now we have to medically screen passengers? This is getting complicated.

On second thought, maybe no one should be banned

All this talk of banning may be taking us to the wrong place. Stopping a violent or unruly passenger from flying is only the beginning. Margaret King, director of The Center for Cultural Studies & Analysis, said other groups could quickly follow, including anger management failures, drug addicts, and "maybe even passengers who are anxious and depressed."

It could soon spiral out of control. People with comfort animals or carrying too much luggage could follow. 

"It could become a long and inclusive list," King added. "Any condition that promotes disruptive behavior would be eligible. And that, when you think about it, is a widely distributed trait."

Come to think of it, this idea of having a nationwide no-fly list might be a terrible idea too. We already have a way of preventing criminals from boarding a flight: lockup.

Airlines and their friends in Congress believe the best way to stop more unruly flier incidents is to stop the unruly fliers from boarding. But maybe the fliers are unruly because flying is such a dehumanizing experience. Fix that and maybe you won't need a no-fly list.

Elliott's strategies for handling a disruptive flier

Are you ready to share a plane with a disruptive passenger? Neither am I, but here are my strategies for surviving the flight.

• Move to a different seat. The best advice for handling a problem passenger is not to handle one at all. Discreetly ask a flight attendant if you can move to a different part of the plane. Or, if there's an empty seat in the same class of service, just move.
• Apply gentle peer pressure. For baby-on-board incidents, a polite and nonconfrontational appeal to the parents can help. You know, if a toddler is using the tray table as a drum set, it's OK to say something to Mom and Dad. The same strategy works with other groups, but don't be too confrontational. Wouldn't want to end up on TikTok now, would you?
• Ask a flight attendant for help. Crewmembers are trained to handle confrontations with disruptive passengers. Again, you might want to ask the flight attendant for help – out of earshot of the disruptive passenger – unless the passenger is a screaming infant.

Christopher Elliott  is an author, consumer advocate, and journalist. He founded  Elliott Advocacy , a nonprofit organization that helps solve consumer problems. He publishes  Elliott Confidential , a travel newsletter, and the  Elliott Report , a news site about customer service. If you need help with a consumer problem, you can  reach him here  or email him at  [email protected] .

Advertisement

Read TikTok’s legal challenge

• Share full article

A PDF version of this document with embedded text is available at the link below:

Download the original document (pdf)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 1 of 70 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT TIKTOK INC., and BYTEDANCE LTD., V. ) Petitioners, No. 24-1113 MERRICK B. GARLAND, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, (Page 1 of Total) Respondent. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 2 of 70 2. That law 1. Congress has taken the unprecedented step of expressly singling out and banning TikTok: a vibrant online forum for protected speech and expression used by 170 million Americans to create, share, and view videos over the Internet. For the first time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban, and bars every American from participating in a unique online community with more than 1 billion people worldwide. the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (the "Act") is unconstitutional. Banning Tik Tok is so obviously unconstitutional, in fact, that even the Act's sponsors recognized that reality, and therefore have tried mightily to depict the law not as a ban at all, but merely a regulation of TikTok's ownership. According to its sponsors, the Act responds to TikTok's ultimate ownership by ByteDance Ltd., a company with Chinese subsidiaries whose employees support various Byte Dance businesses, including TikTok. They claim that the Act is not a ban because it offers Byte Dance a choice: divest TikTok's U.S. business or be shut down.1 ― - 1 References to "TikTok Inc." are to the specific U.S. corporate entity that is a Petitioner in this lawsuit and publishes the TikTok platform in the 1 (Page 2 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 3 of 70 3. But in reality, there is no choice. The "qualified divestiture" demanded by the Act to allow TikTok to continue operating in the United States is simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally. And certainly not on the 270-day timeline required by the Act. Petitioners have repeatedly explained this to the U.S. government, and sponsors of the Act were aware that divestment is not possible. There is no question: the Act will force a shutdown of TikTok by January 19, 2025, silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere. 4. Of course, even if a "qualified divestiture" were feasible, the Act would still be an extraordinary and unconstitutional assertion of power. If upheld, it would allow the government to decide that a company may no longer own and publish the innovative and unique speech United States. References to "TikTok" are to the online platform, which includes both the Tik Tok mobile application and web browser experience. References to “ByteDance Ltd." are to the specific Cayman Islands- incorporated holding company that is identified in the Act and is a Petitioner in this lawsuit. References to "ByteDance" are to the ByteDance group, inclusive of ByteDance Ltd. and relevant operating subsidiaries. TikTok Inc. and ByteDance. Ltd. are together referred to as "Petitioners." (Page 3 of Total) 21

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 4 of 70 platform it created. If Congress can do this, it can circumvent the First. Amendment by invoking national security and ordering the publisher of any individual newspaper or website to sell to avoid being shut down. And for Tik Tok, any such divestiture would disconnect Americans from the rest of the global community on a platform devoted to shared content an outcome fundamentally at odds with the Constitution's commitment to both free speech and individual liberty. 5. There are good reasons why Congress has never before enacted a law like this. Consistent with the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression, the United States has long championed a free and open Internet - and the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that speech "conveyed over the Internet” fully qualifies for “the First Amendment's protections." 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570, 587 (2023). And consistent with the fundamental principles of fairness and equal treatment rooted in the Bill of Attainder Clause and the Fifth Amendment, Congress has never before crafted a two-tiered speech regime with one set of rules for one named platform, and another set of rules for everyone else. (Page 4 of Total) 3

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 5 of 70 6. In dramatic contrast with past enactments that sought to regulate constitutionally protected activity, Congress enacted these extreme measures without a single legislative finding. The Act does not articulate any threat posed by Tik Tok nor explain why TikTok should be excluded from evaluation under the standards Congress concurrently imposed on every other platform. Even the statements by individual Members of Congress and a congressional committee report merely indicate concern about the hypothetical possibility that TikTok could be misused in the future, without citing specific evidence - even though the platform has operated prominently in the United States since it was first launched in 2017. Those speculative concerns fall far short of what is required when First Amendment rights are at stake. 7. Nor is there any indication that Congress considered any number of less restrictive alternatives, such as those that Petitioners developed with the Executive Branch after government agencies began evaluating the security of U.S. user data and the risk of foreign government influence over the platform's content as far back as 2019. While such concerns were never substantiated, Petitioners nevertheless (Page 5 of Total) 4

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 6 of 70 worked with the government for four years on a voluntary basis to develop a framework to address the government's concerns. 8. As part of this engagement, Petitioners have voluntarily invested more than $2 billion to build a system of technological and governance protections sometimes referred to as "Project Texas" - to help safeguard U.S. user data and the integrity of the U.S. TikTok platform against foreign government influence. Petitioners have also made extraordinary, additional commitments in a 90-page draft National Security Agreement developed through negotiations with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ("CFIUS”), including agreeing to a “shut-down option” that would give the government the authority to suspend TikTok in the United States if Petitioners violate certain obligations under the agreement. 9. Congress tossed this tailored agreement aside, in favor of the politically expedient and punitive approach of targeting for disfavor one publisher and speaker (TikTok Inc.), one speech forum (TikTok), and that forum's ultimate owner (ByteDance Ltd.). Through the Act's two-tiered. structure, Congress consciously eschewed responsible industry-wide. regulation and betrayed its punitive and discriminatory purpose. 5 (Page 6 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 7 of 70 Congress provided every other company however serious a threat to - national security it might pose - paths to avoiding a ban, excluding only Tik Tok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd. Indeed, for any other company's application to be banned, Congress mandated notice and a "public report" describing "the specific national security" concern, accompanied by supporting classified evidence. For Petitioners only, however, there is no statement of reasons and no supporting evidence, with any discussion of the justifications for a ban occurring only behind closed doors. 10. Congress must abide by the dictates of the Constitution even when it claims to be protecting against national security risks: “against [those] dangers ... as against others, the principle of the right to free speech is always the same." Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 628 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Congress failed to do so here, and the Act should be enjoined. 11. Jurisdictional Statement Pursuant to Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Act, H.R. 815, div. H, 118th Cong., Pub. L. No. 118-50 (April 24, 2024), this Court has original (Page 7 of Total) 6

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 8 of 70 and exclusive jurisdiction over this challenge to the constitutionality of the Act. 2 A. 12. Background and Nature of Proceedings TikTok Is a Speech Platform Used by 170 Million Americans. Tik Tok is an online video entertainment platform designed to provide a creative and entertaining forum for users to express themselves and make connections with others over the Internet. More than 170 million Americans use TikTok every month, to learn about and share information on a range of topics from entertainment, to religion, to - politics. Content creators use the TikTok platform to express their opinions, discuss their political views, support their preferred political candidates, and speak out on today's many pressing issues, all to a global audience of more than 1 billion users. Many creators also use the 2 A copy of the Act is attached to this Petition as Exhibit A. Because this Petition does not involve a challenge to any agency action, it is not governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(a). Petitioners intend to file a separate motion regarding the procedures governing this original proceeding. Petitioners summarize the pertinent facts and claims below to facilitate this Court's review consistent with the practice of a case-initiating pleading in a court of original jurisdiction, but reserve their rights to present additional facts and arguments in due course. 7 (Page 8 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 9 of 70 platform to post product reviews, business reviews, and travel information and reviews. 13. In the United States, the TikTok platform is provided by Tik Tok Inc., a California-incorporated company that has its principal place of business in Culver City, California and offices in New York, San Jose, Chicago, and Miami, among other locations. TikTok Inc. has thousands of employees in the United States. Like many platforms owned by companies that operate globally, the global TikTok platform is supported not only by those employees, but also by employees of other ByteDance subsidiaries around the globe, including in Singapore, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Germany, South Africa, Australia, and China. Many of the global TikTok platform's functions are spread across different corporate entities and countries, and the global TikTok business is led by a leadership team based in Singapore and the United States. Like other U.S. companies, TikTok Inc. is governed by U.S. law. 14. Tik Tok Inc.'s ultimate parent company is ByteDance Ltd., a Cayman Islands-incorporated equity holding company. Byte Dance was founded in 2012 by Chinese entrepreneurs. Over time, the company sought funding to fuel growth, as is common in the technology sector, 8 (Page 9 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 10 of 70 which resulted in the issuance of additional equity and the dilution of existing shares. Today, approximately 58 percent of ByteDance Ltd. is owned by global institutional investors (such as BlackRock, General Atlantic, and Susquehanna International Group), 21 percent is owned by the company's founder (a Chinese national who lives in Singapore), and 21 percent is owned by employees including approximately 7,000 Americans. 15. ByteDance launched TikTok in May 2017 in over 150 countries, including the United States.³ Since its launch, TikTok has become one of the world's most popular applications, with over 1 billion users worldwide. As of January 2024, more than 170 million Americans use TikTok on a monthly basis. 16. Users primarily view content on TikTok through its "For You" page, which presents a collection of videos curated by TikTok's proprietary recommendation engine. The recommendation engine customizes each user's content feed based on how the user interacts with 3 Tik Tok was later relaunched in August 2018 following a transaction involving the company Musical.ly. See generally Petition for Review, Tik Tok Inc. v. CFIUS, No. 20-1444 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 10, 2020). 9 (Page 10 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 11 of 70 the content that the user watches. TikTok's popularity is based in large part on the effectiveness of the recommendation engine. The source code for TikTok's recommendation engine was originally developed by ByteDance engineers based in China, and the engine is customized for operations in TikTok's various global markets, including in the United States. TikTok is not offered in mainland China. 17. Aside from TikTok, ByteDance has developed and operates more than a dozen other online platforms and software applications for use in U.S. and international markets, including for content-sharing, video and music editing, e-commerce, gaming, and enterprise productivity. B. 18. The Government Previously Made Unlawful Attempts to Ban TikTok. Petitioners' efforts to address the U.S. government's asserted concerns regarding the TikTok platform date back to 2019. At that time, Petitioners began engaging with CFIUS, which had initiated a review of ByteDance Ltd.'s 2017 acquisition of Musical.ly, another Internet-based video-sharing platform. (Page 11 of Total) 10

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 12 of 70 19. Petitioners were in the early stages of engaging with CFIUS on a voluntary basis to address the government's concerns, when on August 6, 2020, President Trump abruptly issued an executive order purporting to ban TikTok under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA”), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-08. See 85 Fed. Reg. 48,637 (the "Ban Order"). Two separate district courts preliminarily enjoined the Ban Order, concluding (among other things) that it exceeded the President's IEEPA authority. TikTok Inc. v. Trump, 490 F. Supp. 3d 73, 83 (D.D.C. 2020); TikTok Inc. v. Trump, 507 F. Supp. 3d 92, 112 (D.D.C. 2020); Marland v. Trump, 498 F. Supp. 3d 624, 641 (E.D. Pa. 2020). 20. Specifically, as these courts correctly recognized, the President's IEEPA authority "to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat" to the nation “does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly ... [any] personal communication” or the importation or exportation “of any information or informational materials.” 50 U.S.C. § 1702(b)(1), (3). These restrictions on the President's IEEPA authority-which Congress expanded through multiple amendments to the statute were designed “to prevent the statute from running afoul of the First Amendment.” United States v. 11 (Page 12 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 13 of 70 Amirnazmi, 645 F.3d 564, 585 (3d Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted); see also Kalantari v. NITV, Inc., 352 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2003) (IEEPA's limitations necessary “to prevent the executive branch from restricting the international flow of materials protected by the First. Amendment"); Marland, 498 F. Supp. 3d at 629 (same). 21. Looking to the foundational First Amendment principles codified in IEEPA's text and legislative history, these courts concluded that President Trump's efforts to ban TikTok violated the statute and raised "serious" constitutional questions (which were unnecessary to decide under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance). Tik Tok Inc., 507 F. Supp. 3d at 112 n.6; TikTok Inc., 490 F. Supp. 3d at 83 n.3. The courts granted the government's motions to voluntarily dismiss its appeals after President Biden withdrew the Ban Order. See Tik Tok Inc. v. Biden, No. 20-5302, 2021 WL 3713550 (D.C. Cir. July 20, 2021); Tik Tok Inc. v. Biden, No. 20-5381, 2021 WL 3082803 (D.C. Cir. July 14, 2021); Marland v. Trump, No. 20-3322, 2021 WL 5346749 (3d Cir. July 14, 2021). 22. Separately, acting on a CFIUS referral, President Trump on August 14, 2020 issued an order under Section 721 of the Defense Production Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4565, purporting to direct ByteDance to 12 (Page 13 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 14 of 70 divest from TikTok's U.S. business and U.S. user data. 85 Fed. Reg. 51,297 (the "Divestment Order"). On November 10, 2020, Petitioners petitioned this Court for review of the Divestment Order and underlying CFIUS actions, arguing, among other things, that the government lacked jurisdiction under the statute. See Petition for Review, TikTok Inc. v. CFIUS, No. 20-1444 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 10, 2020). That petition was held in abeyance in February 2021 on the parties' joint motion to allow the parties to negotiate a resolution. The government has filed status reports every 60 days since then, most recently on April 22, 2024. Those status reports have consistently reported that “[t]he parties continue to be involved in ongoing negotiations” and “[a] beyance continues to be appropriate.” See, e.g., Status Report, Tik Tok Inc. v. CFIUS, No. 20-1444 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 22, 2024). 23. Between January 2021 and August 2022, Petitioners and CFIUS engaged in an intensive, fact-based process to develop a National Security Agreement that would resolve the U.S. government's concerns about whether Chinese authorities might be able to access U.S. user data or manipulate content on TikTok, as well as resolve the pending CFIUS During that time, Petitioners and government officials dispute. 13 (Page 14 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 15 of 70 communicated regularly, often several times a week - including several - in-person meetings about the government's concerns and potential solutions. The result was an approximately 90-page draft National Security Agreement with detailed annexes embodying a comprehensive solution addressing the government's national security concerns. Notably, the draft National Security Agreement provided that all protected U.S. user data (as defined in the agreement) would be stored in the cloud environment of a U.S.-government-approved partner, Oracle Corporation, which would also review and vet the TikTok source code. 24. From Petitioners' perspective, all indications were that they were nearing a final agreement. After August 2022, however, CFIUS without explanation stopped engaging with Petitioners in meaningful discussions about the National Security Agreement. Petitioners repeatedly asked why discussions had ended and how they might be restarted, but they did not receive a substantive response. In March 2023, without providing any justification for why the draft National Security Agreement was inadequate, CFIUS insisted that Byte Dance would be required to divest the U.S. TikTok business. (Page 15 of Total) 14

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 16 of 70 25. Since March 2023, Petitioners have explained to CFIUS, in multiple written communications and in-person meetings, that a divestiture of the U.S. TikTok business from the rest of the integrated global Tik Tok platform and business of the sort now required by the Act is not feasible. CFIUS has never articulated any basis for disagreeing with that assessment, offering instead only a conclusory assertion that the reason ByteDance was not divesting was because it was simply unwilling to do so. The Act nonetheless incorporates precisely such an infeasible divestiture standard. C. 26. A Divestiture that Severs TikTok's U.S. Operations From the Rest of the Globally Integrated TikTok Business Is Not Commercially, Technologically, or Legally Feasible. The Act purports to allow Petitioners to avoid a ban by executing a "qualified divestiture." Sec. 2(c). But that alternative is illusory because, as Petitioners have repeatedly explained to CFIUS, the divestiture of the TikTok U.S. business and its severance from the globally integrated platform of which it is an integral part is not commercially, technologically, or legally feasible. (Page 16 of Total) 15

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 17 of 70 - 27. First, a standalone U.S. TikTok platform would not be commercially viable. TikTok and its competitors are globally integrated platforms where content created in one country is available to users in other countries. Indeed, a substantial part of TikTok's appeal is the richness of the international content available on the platform from global sporting events like the Olympics to international K-pop stars from South Korea, as well as videos created by U.S. creators and enjoyed by audiences worldwide. A divestment of the U.S. TikTok platform, without any operational relationship with the remainder of the global platform, would preclude the interoperability necessary to make international content seamlessly available in the U.S. market and vice versa. As a result, the U.S. TikTok platform would become an “island” where Americans would have an experience detached from the rest of the global platform and its over 1 billion users. Such a limited pool of content, in turn, would dramatically undermine the value and viability of the U.S. TikTok business.4 4 The contemplated qualified divestiture would also undercut the important role currently played by American voices in the global conversation ongoing on TikTok. 16 (Page 17 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 18 of 70 28. Second, precipitously moving all TikTok source code development from ByteDance to a new Tik Tok owner would be impossible as a technological matter. The platform consists of millions of lines of software code that have been painstakingly developed by thousands of engineers over multiple years. Although much of this code is basic infrastructure for running the global TikTok platform and has nothing at all to do with TikTok's recommendation algorithm, the statute requires that all of this code be wrested from Petitioners, so that there is no “operational relationship" between ByteDance and the new U.S. platform. Specifically, to comply with the law's divestiture requirement, that code base would have to be moved to a large, alternative team of engineers a team that does not exist and would have no understanding of the complex code necessary to run the platform. It would take years for an entirely new set of engineers to gain sufficient familiarity with the source code to perform the ongoing, necessary maintenance and development activities for the platform. Moreover, to keep the platform functioning, these engineers would need access to ByteDance software tools, which the Act prohibits. Such a fundamental rearchitecting is not - (Page 18 of Total) 17

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 19 of 70 remotely feasible on anything approaching the 270-day timeframe contemplated by the Act. 29. Third, the Chinese government has made clear that it would not permit a divestment of the recommendation engine that is a key to the success of TikTok in the United States. Like the United States,5 China regulates the export of certain technologies originating there. China's export control rules cover “information processing technologies” such as "personal interactive data algorithms.”6 China's official news agency has reported that under these rules, any sale of recommendation algorithms developed by engineers employed by ByteDance subsidiaries in China, including for TikTok, would require a government license. 5 For example, the U.S. Department of Commerce has issued restrictions on the export to China of advanced chips that can be used to train artificial intelligence models. E.g., Implementation of Additional Export Controls: Certain Advanced Computing Items; Supercomputer and Semiconductor End Use; Updates and Corrections, 88 Fed. Reg. 73458 (Oct. 25, 2023) (to be codified at 15 C.F.R. § 732.2 et seq.). 6 See Karen M. Sutter, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IN11524, China Issues New Export Control Law and Related Policies 2 (2020). 7 Paul Mozur, Raymond Zhong & David McCabe, Tik Tok Deal Is Complicated by New Rules From China Over Tech Exports, N.Y. Times (Aug. 29, 2020), https://perma.cc/L6RB-CTT9. 18 (Page 19 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 20 of 70 China also enacted an additional export control law that "gives the Chinese government new policy tools and justifications to deny and impose terms on foreign commercial transactions."8 China adopted these enhanced export control restrictions between August and October 2020, shortly after President Trump's August 6, 2020 and August 14, 2020 executive orders targeting TikTok. By doing so, the Chinese government clearly signaled that it would assert its export control powers with respect to any attempt to sever TikTok's operations from ByteDance, and that any severance would leave TikTok without access to the recommendation engine that has created a unique style and community that cannot be replicated on any other platform today. D. 30. The Act Bans TikTok and Other Byte Dance Applications. On April 24, 2024, the President signed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. 31. The Act prohibits, on pain of draconian penalties, “online mobile application store[s]" and "internet hosting services" from servicing "foreign adversary controlled application[s]" within the United States. 8 Sutter, supra n.6. 19 (Page 20 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 21 of 70 See Sec. 2(a), 2(d)(1)(A). This includes the "distribution, maintenance, or updating" of a covered application through an online marketplace. Sec. 2(a)(1). 32. Section 2(g) (3) creates two classes of "foreign adversary controlled applications" covered by the Act. 33. The first class singles out only one corporate group: "Byte Dance[] Ltd.,” “TikTok,” their “subsidiar[ies] or successor[s]" that are "controlled by a foreign adversary," or any entity "owned or controlled" by the aforementioned.9 The Act deems any application. operated by these entities a “foreign adversary controlled application," without any finding about why any particular application much less - - every application operated by these entities should be so designated. See Sec. 2(g)(3)(A). 9 “TikTok” is a platform, not a legal entity. Petitioners assume that Congress intended this provision to be a reference to TikTok Inc., and further reserve their rights to amend this Petition to include additional Tik Tok entities to the extent the government takes the position that other entities are covered by this reference. In any event, TikTok Inc. is covered as an entity “owned or controlled" by ByteDance Ltd. 20 (Page 21 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 22 of 70 34. The second class creates a discretionary process by which the President can designate other companies whose applications will also effectively be banned. Under these provisions, the President may designate an application as a "foreign adversary controlled application" if several qualifications are met: a. Covered Company. The website or application is operated directly or indirectly by a "covered company" - i.e., a company that operates a website or application that permits users to share content and has at least 1 million monthly active users. See Sec. 2(g)(2)(A). b. Controlled by a Foreign Adversary. The "covered company" operating the website or application must also be "controlled by a foreign adversary," meaning it is "headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws" of a "foreign adversary country," which currently includes China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran. Sec. 2(g)(1)(A), (g)(4); see also 10 U.S.C. § 4872(d)(2). A company may also be "controlled by a foreign adversary" if persons domiciled in any of the 21 (Page 22 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 23 of 70 (Page 23 of Total) specified countries (i.e., China, Iran, Russia, or North Korea) directly or indirectly own at least 20 percent of the company. Sec. 2(g)(1)(B). c. Not Exempt under Sec. 2(g)(2)(B). But Congress specifically exempted from the term “covered company" any "entity that operates" a website or application "whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews." An entity that operates a single website or application of this nature thus cannot be a “covered company,” even if it is "controlled by a foreign adversary," poses a significant national security risk, and separately operates an application whose primary purpose is anything other than allowing users to post reviews. Sec. 2(g)(2)(B). d. Presidential Determination, Notice and Report, and Judicial Review. Finally, the President must determine that such a company presents “a significant threat to the national security of the United States." Sec. 2(g)(3)(B)(ii). Before making such a determination, the President must 22

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 24 of 70 issue public notice proposing the determination and then provide a public report to Congress describing "the specific national security concern involved," supplemented by a classified annex, and also explain "what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture." Id. These presidential determinations are then subject to judicial review. Sec. 3(a). 35. Section 2(c) exempts a "foreign adversary controlled application[]" from the Act's prohibitions if the company that operates the application executes a “qualified divestiture." Sec. 2(c). The President must determine that such divestiture would (1) "result in the relevant covered company no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary," and (2) “preclude[] the establishment or maintenance of any operational relationship" between the application's U.S. operations and any formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary, including "any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content. recommendation algorithm." Sec. 2(c), (g) (6). As noted above, the Act's broad definition of "controlled by a foreign adversary" includes, among other things, any entity organized under the laws of a "foreign adversary 23 (Page 24 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 25 of 70 country," or any entity in which a foreign person domiciled in a foreign adversary country holds at least a 20 percent ownership stake. Sec. 2(g)(1), (3)(B)(i), (4). 36. The prohibition on providing Internet hosting and mobile application store services to TikTok and other ByteDance applications. takes effect 270 days after enactment. Sec. 2(a)(2)(A). The President may extend this deadline, but only for 90 days maximum, and only if the President certifies to Congress that a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified, evidence of significant progress toward executing that qualified divestiture has been produced, and the relevant binding legal agreements to enable execution of the qualified divestiture are in place. 37. "Before the date on which [this] prohibition" takes effect, Petitioners are required to provide, upon request by any U.S. user of any of their applications, “all the available data related to the account of such user with respect to such application." Sec. 2(b).10 10 Because Section 2(b)'s data portability requirement applies "[b]efore" the prohibition under Section 2(a) takes effect, it cannot be "given effect" without Section 2(a) for purposes of Section 2(e)(1) of the Act, which provides that "[i]f any provision of this section or the application of this 24 (Page 25 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 26 of 70 38. Because the Act lacks any legislative findings or a statement of purpose, Petitioners and the more than 170 million American monthly users of TikTok are left to scrutinize statements from individual Members of Congress and other sources to try to discern any purported justification for this extraordinary intrusion on free speech rights. Based on these sources, it appears at least some Members of Congress sought to address "two threats" that could emerge from foreign ownership of communications platforms. 11 39. First, they may have sought to protect U.S. users' “data security."12 According to the House Committee Report for an earlier version of the Act, mobile applications, including those that are not section to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications of this section that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application." Because Section 2(a) violates the Constitution for the reasons set forth herein, Section 2(b) is accordingly "not operative in the absence of the unconstitutional provision.” Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Pol. Consultants, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 2335, 2352 n.9 (2020). 11 Jane Coaston, What the Tik Tok Bill Is Really About, According to a Leading Republican, N.Y. Times (Apr. 1, 2024), https://perma.cc/BL32- 786X (quoting the Act's original sponsor, Rep. Mike Gallagher). 12 Id. (Page 26 of Total) 25

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 27 of 70 controlled by foreign adversaries, can “collect vast amounts of data on Americans."13 The House Committee Report expressed a concern that such data could be used by a foreign adversary to "conduct espionage campaigns," such as by tracking specific individuals. 14 40. Second, others in Congress appear to have been motivated by a "greater concern": an alleged "propaganda threat." 15 One proponent of the Act stated that communications applications could be used to "push misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda on the American public."16 Another supporter claimed in the House Select Committee press release accompanying the bill's introduction that “[TikTok] is ... poisoning the minds of our youth every day on a massive scale."17 13 H.R. Comm. on Energy & Com., Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, H.R. Rep. No. 118-417 at 2 (2024) (hereinafter the "House Committee Report"). 14 Id. 15 Coaston, supra n.11 (quoting Rep. Gallagher). 16 House Committee Report at 2. 17 Press Release, U.S. House Select Comm. on Strategic Competition Between the U.S. and the Chinese Communist Party, Gallagher, Bipartisan Coalition Introduce Legislation to Protect Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications, Including TikTok (Mar. 5, 2024), https://perma.cc/KC5T-6AX3. (Page 27 of Total) 26

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 28 of 70 E. Congress Disregarded Alternatives to Banning TikTok, Such as the National Security Measures Petitioners Negotiated with the Executive Branch. 41. Petitioners have demonstrated a commitment to addressing both of those concerns without the need to resort to the drastic, unconstitutional step of shuttering one of the most widely used forums for speech in the United States. The 90-page draft National Security Agreement that Petitioners developed with Petitioners developed with CFIUS would, if implemented, provide U.S. TikTok users with protections more robust than those employed by any other widely used online platform in the industry. 42. The draft National Security Agreement contains several means of ensuring data security without banning TikTok. All protected U.S. user data (as defined in the National Security Agreement) would be safeguarded in the United States under a special corporate structure: TikTok U.S. Data Security (a new subsidiary of Tik Tok Inc.). A special board, with Security Directors whose appointment would be subject to the U.S. government's approval, would oversee TikTok U.S. Data Security, and in turn exclude ByteDance and all of its other subsidiaries and affiliates from such responsibilities. Further separation between the 27 (Page 28 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 29 of 70 U.S. TikTok business and Byte Dance subsidiaries and affiliates, including TikTok in the rest of the world, would be achieved by appointing a U.S.-government-approved Security Director to the board of Tik Tok Inc. Protected U.S. user data would be stored in the cloud environment of a U.S.-government-approved partner, Oracle Corporation, with access to such data managed by TikTok U.S. Data Security. 43. The draft Agreement would also protect against the concern about content manipulation and propaganda. Multiple layers of protection address concerns related to content available on the TikTok platform, including ensuring that all content moderation - both human and algorithmic ➖ would be subject to third-party verification and monitoring. The concern about content manipulation would also be addressed by securing all software code through Oracle Corporation, a U.S. trusted technology provider. The Tik Tok U.S. platform and application would be deployed through the Oracle cloud infrastructure and subject to source code review and vetting by Oracle with another U.S.-government-approved third party responsible for conducting security inspections. As part of this process, Oracle and third parties 28 (Page 29 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 30 of 70 approved by CFIUS would conduct independent inspections of the Tik Tok recommendation engine. 44. The draft Agreement also includes strict penalties for noncompliance, including a "shut-down option," giving the government the authority to suspend TikTok in the United States in response to specified acts of noncompliance. The Agreement also provides significant monetary penalties and other remedies for noncompliance. 45. Although the government has apparently abandoned the draft National Security Agreement, Petitioners have not. TikTok Inc. has begun the process of voluntarily implementing the National Security Agreement's provisions to the extent it can do so without the U.S. government's cooperation, including by incorporating and staffing the TikTok U.S. Data Security entity, and by partnering with Oracle Corporation on the migration of the U.S. platform and protected U.S. user data to Oracle's cloud environment. 46. To date, Petitioners have spent more than $2 billion to implement these measures and resolve the very concerns publicly expressed by congressional supporters of the Act all without the overbroad and unconstitutional method of an outright ban. 29 (Page 30 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 31 of 70 Grounds On Which Relief Is Sought Petitioners seek review of the constitutionality of the Act on grounds that include, without limitation, the following. Ground 1: Violation of the First Amendment 47. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech." U.S. Const., amend. I. 48. By banning all online platforms and software applications offered by "TikTok" and all ByteDance subsidiaries, Congress has made a law curtailing massive amounts of protected speech. Unlike broadcast television and radio stations, which require government licenses to operate because they use the public airwaves, the government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, dictate the ownership of newspapers, websites, online platforms, and other privately created. speech forums. 49. Indeed, in the past, Congress has recognized the importance of protecting First Amendment rights, even when regulating in the interest of national security. For example, Congress repeatedly amended IEEPA which grants the President broad authority to address national 30 (Page 31 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 32 of 70 emergencies that pose "unusual and extraordinary threat[s]" to the country to expand protections for constitutionally protected materials. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-02. Accordingly, under IEEPA, the President does not have the authority to even indirectly regulate "personal communication" or the importation or exportation "of any information or informational materials,” id. § 1702(b)(1), (3) limitations that are necessary "to prevent the statute from running afoul of the First Amendment," Amirnazmi, 645 F.3d at 585. Yet Congress has attempted to sidestep these statutory protections aimed at protecting Americans' constitutional rights, preferring instead to simply enact a new statute that tries to avoid the constitutional limitations on the government's existing statutory Those statutory protections were evidently seen as an impediment to Congress's goal of banning TikTok, so the Act dispensed authority. with them. 50. The Act's alternative to a ban a so-called “qualified - - divestiture" is illusory to the point of being no alternative at all. As explained above, divesting TikTok Inc.'s U.S. business and completely severing it from the globally integrated platform of which it is a part is not commercially, technologically, or legally feasible. 31 (Page 32 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 33 of 70 51. The Act will therefore have the effect of shutting down TikTok in the United States, a popular forum for free speech and expression used by over 170 million Americans each month. And the Act will do so based not on any proof of a compelling interest, but on speculative and analytically flawed concerns about data security and content manipulation concerns that, even if grounded in fact, could be - addressed through far less restrictive and more narrowly tailored means. 52. Petitioners' protected speech rights. The Act burdens Tik Tok Inc.'s First Amendment rights in addition to the free speech - rights of millions of people throughout the United States in two ways. - 53. First, Petitioner TikTok Inc. has a First Amendment interest in its editorial and publishing activities on TikTok. See Hurley v. Irish- Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Bos., 515 U.S. 557, 570 (1995). TikTok “is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising" of others; TikTok Inc.'s "choice of material" to recommend or forbid “constitute[s] the exercise of editorial control and judgment" that is protected by the First Amendment. Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974); see also Alario v. Knudsen, (Page 33 of Total) 32

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 34 of 70 - F. Supp. 3d, 2023 WL 8270811, at *6 (D. Mont. Nov. 30, 2023) (recognizing Tik Tok Inc.'s First Amendment editorial rights). 54. As the government itself has acknowledged, “[w]hen [social media] platforms decide which third-party content to present and how to present it, they engage in expressive activity protected by the First Amendment because they are creating expressive compilations of speech." Br. for United States as Amicus Curiae at 12-13, Moody v. NetChoice LLC, No. 22-277 (U.S.), 2023 WL 8600432; see also id. at 18- 19, 25-26. 55. Second, Tik Tok Inc. is among the speakers whose expression the Act prohibits. TikTok Inc. uses the TikTok platform to create and share its own content about issues and current events, including, for example, its support for small businesses, Earth Day, and literacy and education. 18 When TikTok Inc. does so, it is engaging in core speech protected by the First Amendment. See Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 18 Tik Tok (@tiktok), TikTok, https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTL9QsTYs/ (last visited May 6, 2024); TikTok (@tiktok), TikTok, https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTL9QbSHv/ (last visited May 6, 2024); TikTok (@tiktok), TikTok, https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTL9QXE7R/ (last visited May 6, 2024). (Page 34 of Total) 33

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 35 of 70 U.S. 552, 570 (2011); NetChoice, LLC v. Att'y Gen., Fla., 34 F.4th 1196, 1210 (11th Cir. 2022), cert. granted, 144 S. Ct. 478 (2023). The Act precludes TikTok Inc. from expressing itself over that platform. 56. Even if the U.S. TikTok platform could be divested, which it cannot for the reasons explained above, TikTok Inc.'s protected speech rights would still be burdened. Because the Act appears to conclusively determine that any application operated by "TikTok" - a term that — Congress presumably meant to include Tik Tok Inc. is a foreign adversary controlled application, Sec. 2(g)(3)(A), the President appears to lack the power to determine that a TikTok Inc.-owned application is "no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary" and has no “operational relationship" with “formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary," Sec. 2(g)(6)(A) & (B). The Act therefore appears to conclusively eliminate TikTok Inc.'s ability to speak through its editorial and publishing activities and through its own. account on the TikTok platform. 57. For similar reasons, the Act burdens the First Amendment rights of other ByteDance subsidiaries to reach their U.S. user audiences, (Page 35 of Total) 34

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 36 of 70 since those companies are likewise prohibited from speaking and engaging in editorial activities on other ByteDance applications. 58. The Act is subject to strict scrutiny. The Act's restrictions on Petitioners' First Amendment rights are subject to strict scrutiny for three independent reasons. 59. First, the Act represents a content- and viewpoint-based restriction on protected speech. The Act discriminates on a content basis because it exempts platforms "whose primary purpose" is to host specific types of content: "product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.” Sec. 2(g)(2)(B). The Act thus “distinguish[es] favored speech" - i.e., speech concerning travel information and business reviews "from disfavored speech" ―i.e., all other types of - speech, including particularly valuable speech like religious and political content. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 643 (1994). 60. The Act also discriminates on a viewpoint basis because it appears to have been enacted at least in part because of concerns over the viewpoints expressed in videos posted on TikTok by users of the platform. For example, the House Committee Report asserted, without supporting evidence, that Tik Tok "can be used by [foreign adversaries] to 35 (Page 36 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 37 of 70 push misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda on the American public" 19 a concern that in any event could be raised about any platform for user-generated content. See infra ¶¶82, 87. Similarly, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, who co-sponsored the Act, expressed the unsubstantiated concern that “the platform continued to show dramatic differences in content relative to other social media platforms."20 61. Second, the Act discriminates between types of speakers. As explained above, TikTok Inc. is a protected First Amendment speaker with respect to the TikTok platform. The Act facially discriminates between Tik Tok Inc. and other speakers depending on the "primary purpose” of the platforms they operate. Any application offered by Petitioners is automatically deemed a “foreign adversary controlled application,” without any exclusions or exceptions. Sec. 2(g)(3)(A). By contrast, any other company's application can be deemed a "foreign adversary controlled application” only if the company does not operate a 19 House Committee Report at 2. 20 Sapna Maheshwari, David McCabe & Annie Karni, House Passes Bill to Force Tik Tok Sale From Chinese Owner or Ban the App, N.Y. Times (Mar. 13, 2024), https://perma.cc/Z7UE-WYH6. (Page 37 of Total) 36

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 38 of 70 website or application "whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews." Sec. 2(g)(2)(B). The Act thus favors speakers that do offer such websites or applications over speakers that do not. 62. Moreover, the Act singles out TikTok Inc. and other subsidiaries of ByteDance for unique disfavor in other ways. Whereas other companies with ownership in a country deemed a "foreign adversary" become subject to the Act's restrictions only upon a presidential determination that the company poses "a significant threat to the national security of the United States,” Sec. 2(g)(3)(B), ByteDance Ltd. and its subsidiaries are automatically subject to the Act's draconian restrictions by fiat, Sec. 2(g)(3)(A). The standard and process that the Act specifies for every other company likely fall short of what is required. by the First Amendment and other applicable constitutional protections, but TikTok Inc. and ByteDance have been singled out for a dramatically different, even more clearly unconstitutional regime with no public notice, no process for a presidential determination that there is a significant national security threat, no justification of that determination by a public report and submission of classified evidence to Congress, and 37 - (Page 38 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 39 of 70 no judicial review for statutory and constitutional sufficiency based on the reasons set forth in the presidential determination. The Act also draws a speaker-based distinction insofar as it specifically names Byte Dance Ltd. and TikTok, and also exempts applications with fewer than 1 million monthly users (except if those applications are operated by ByteDance Ltd. or TikTok). Sec. 2(g)(2)(A)(ii), (3)(A). 63. A statutory restriction targeting specific classes of speakers is subject to strict scrutiny. See United States v. Playboy Ent. Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 812 (2000) ("Laws designed or intended to suppress or restrict the expression of certain speakers contradict basic First Amendment principles."). And that is especially true when, as here, the Act singles out Petitioners by name for uniquely disfavored treatment and congressional statements indicate that the Act targets Petitioners in part because of concerns about the content on TikTok. Because the Act "target[s]" both "speakers and their messages for disfavored treatment,” strict scrutiny review is required. Sorrell, 564 U.S. at 565; see also Turner, 512 U.S. at 658-60. 64. Third, the Act is subject to strict scrutiny as an unlawful prior restraint. The Supreme Court has "consistently" recognized in a "long 38 (Page 39 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 40 of 70 line" of cases that government actions that “deny use of a forum in advance of actual expression" or forbid “the use of public places [for plaintiffs] to say what they wanted to say" are prior restraints. Se. Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 552-53 (1975). “[P]rior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least. tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights." Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976). The Act suppresses speech in advance of its actual expression by prohibiting all U.S. TikTok users including Petitioner Tik Tok Inc. - from communicating on the platform. See Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F.3d 229 (7th Cir. 2015) (defendant's conduct restricting the operator of classified advertising website was a prior restraint); Org. for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 418–19 (1971) (ban on distributing leaflets a prior restraint); U.S. WeChat Users All. v. Trump, 488 F. Supp. 3d 912, 926 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (ban on communications application a prior restraint). The same is true of other Byte Dance subsidiaries and their platforms. Such restrictions “bear[] a heavy presumption against [their] constitutional validity." Se. Promotions, 420 U.S. at 558. (Page 40 of Total) 39

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 41 of 70 65. The Act fails strict scrutiny because it does not further a compelling interest. Strict scrutiny “requires the Government to prove that the restriction [1] furthers a compelling interest and [2] is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest." Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 171 (2015) (numerical alterations added). "If a less restrictive alternative would serve the Government's purpose, the legislature must use that alternative." Playboy, 529 U.S. at 813. The Act fails on both counts. 66. The Act does not further a compelling interest. To be sure, national security is a compelling interest, but the government must show that the Act furthers that interest. To do so, the government "must do more than simply posit the existence of the disease sought to be cured." Turner, 512 U.S. at 664 (plurality op.). Rather, it “must demonstrate that the recited harms are real, not merely conjectural, and that the regulation will in fact alleviate these harms in a direct and material way." Id. 67. Congress itself has offered nothing to suggest that the TikTok platform poses the types of risks to data security or the spread of foreign propaganda that could conceivably justify the Act. The Act is devoid of 40 (Page 41 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 42 of 70 any legislative findings, much less a demonstration of specific harms that Tik Tok supposedly poses in either respect, even though the platform was first launched in 2017. 68. The statements of congressional committees and individual Members of Congress during the hasty, closed-door legislative process preceding the Act's enactment confirm that there is at most speculation, not "evidence,” as the First Amendment requires. Instead of setting out evidence that TikTok is actually compromising Americans' data security by sharing it with the Chinese government or spreading pro-China propaganda, the House Committee Report for an earlier version of the Act relies repeatedly on speculation that Tik Tok could do those things. See, e.g., House Committee Report at 6 (TikTok could “potentially [be] allowing the CCP 'to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors") (emphasis added) (quoting Exec. Order 13,942, 85 Fed. Reg. 48637, 48637 (Aug. 6, 2020)); id. at 8 (discussing "the possibility that the [CCP] could use [TikTok] to control data collection on millions of users") (emphasis added); id. ("Tik Tok has sophisticated capabilities that create the risk that [it] can ……. suppre[ss] statements and news that the PRC deems negative") (emphasis added). Speculative risk of harm is simply 41 (Page 42 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 43 of 70 not enough when First Amendment values are at stake. These risks are even more speculative given the other ways that the Chinese government could advance these asserted interests using a variety of intelligence tools and commercial methods. See infra 85–87. 69. The conjectural nature of these concerns are further underscored by President Biden's decision to continue to maintain a Tik Tok account for his presidential campaign even after signing the Act into law. 21 Congressional supporters of the Act have also maintained campaign accounts on TikTok. 22 This continued use of TikTok by President Biden and Members of Congress undermines the claim that the platform poses an actual threat to Americans. 70. Further, even if the government could show that TikTok or another ByteDance-owned application "push[es] misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda on the American public," House 21 Monica Alba, Sahil Kapur & Scott Wong, Biden Campaign Plans to Keep Using Tik Tok Through the Election, NBC News (Apr. 24, 2024), https://perma.cc/QPQ5-RVAD. 22 Tom Norton, These US Lawmakers Voted for Tik Tok Ban But Use It Themselves, Newsweek (Apr. 17, 2024), https://perma.cc/AQ5F-N8XQ. At least one Member created a TikTok account after the Act was enacted. See https://perma.cc/L3GT-7529. (Page 43 of Total) 42

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 44 of 70 Committee Report at 2, the government would still lack a compelling interest in preventing Americans from hearing disfavored speech. generated by TikTok users and shared on the platform just because the government considers it to be foreign "propaganda." See Lamont v. Postmaster Gen. of U.S., 381 U.S. 301, 305 (1965). 71. The Act also offers no support for the idea that other applications operated by subsidiaries of ByteDance Ltd. pose national security risks. Indeed, the legislative record contains no meaningful discussion of any ByteDance-owned application other than TikTok― let alone evidence “proving” that those other applications pose such risks. Reed, 576 U.S. at 171. 72. - The Act also provides neither support nor explanation for subjecting Petitioners to statutory disqualification by legislative fiat while providing every other platform, and users of other platforms, with a process that includes a statutory standard for disqualification, notice, a reasoned decision supported by evidence, and judicial review based on those specified reasons. Only Petitioners are subjected to a regime that has no notice and no reasoned decision supported by evidence - opening the door to, among other things, post-hoc arguments that may not have 43 (Page 44 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 45 of 70 been the basis for the government action. The Supreme Court recently explained that the requirement of a "reasoned explanation" is "meant to ensure that [the government] offer[s] genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public. Accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise." Dep't of Com. v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2576 (2019). Depriving Petitioners of those protections imposes a dramatically heavier burden on the free speech rights of Petitioners and TikTok users that is wholly unjustified and certainly not supported by a compelling interest. The Act also fails strict scrutiny because it is not narrowly tailored. "Even where questions of allegedly urgent national security. . . are concerned," the government must show that "the evil that would result from the [restricted speech] is both great and certain and cannot be mitigated by less intrusive measures.” CBS, Inc. v. Davis, 510 U.S. 1315, 1317 (1994). To satisfy narrow tailoring, the Act must represent the least restrictive means to further the government's asserted data security and propaganda interests, Sable Commc'ns of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126 (1989), and be neither over- nor under- 73. (Page 45 of Total) 44

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 46 of 70 inclusive, Ark. Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 232 (1987). The Act fails in each of these respects. 74. The Act opts for a wholesale prohibition on Petitioners offering online applications in lieu of a multitude of less restrictive measures it could have taken instead. As discussed above, Petitioners have been involved in negotiations with CFIUS since 2019 over a package of measures that would resolve the government's concerns about data security and purported propaganda related to TikTok. The terms of that negotiated package are far less restrictive than an outright ban. The negotiations have resulted in the draft National Security Agreement, which Tik Tok Inc. is already in the process of voluntarily implementing to the extent it can do so without government action. That initiative includes a multi-billion-dollar effort to create a new TikTok U.S. subsidiary devoted to protecting U.S. user data and have U.S.-based Oracle Corporation store protected U.S. TikTok user data in the United States, run the TikTok recommendation system for U.S. users, and inspect TikTok's source code for security vulnerabilities. 75. If executed by the government, the National Security Agreement would also give CFIUS a "shut-down option" to suspend 45 (Page 46 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 47 of 70 Tik Tok in the United States in response to specified acts of noncompliance. The government has never meaningfully explained why the National Security Agreement (a far less restrictive alternative to an outright, total ban) is insufficient to address its stated concerns about data security and propaganda. 76. Even if the government's dissatisfaction with the draft. National Security Agreement were valid (despite the government never explaining why the agreement that the government itself negotiated is unsatisfactory), the CFIUS process in in which Petitioners have participated in good faith is geared toward finding any number of other less restrictive alternatives to an outright, total ban. The CFIUS member agencies could return to working with Petitioners to craft a solution that is tailored to meet the government's concerns and that is commercially, technologically, and legally feasible. Yet the government has not explained why the CFIUS process is not a viable alternative. 77. There are also a wide range of other less restrictive measures that Congress could have enacted. While many of these measures are themselves unjustified as applied to Petitioners, they nevertheless. illustrate that the Act does not select the least restrictive means to 46 (Page 47 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 48 of 70 further the national security goals that appear to have motivated it. For example, Congress could have addressed some members' stated concern about Tik Tok allegedly "track[ing] the locations of Federal employees and contractors" 23 by expanding the existing ban on government-owned devices to cover personal devices of federal employees and contractors. Or Congress could have enacted legislation to regulate TikTok's access to measures the Department of certain features on users' devices Homeland Security identified in 2020 as potential mitigations to "reduce the national security risks associated with" TikTok.24 78. Of course, Congress could also have decided not to single out a single speech platform (TikTok) and company (ByteDance Ltd.), and instead pursued any number of industry-wide regulations aimed at addressing the industry-wide issues of data security and content integrity. Congress could have enacted a data protection law governing transfers of Americans' sensitive data to foreign countries, similar to the 23 House Committee Report at 6. 24 Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience Note, Appendix B: Department of Homeland Security Tik Tok and WeChat Risk Assessment 4 (Sept. 2, 2020). 47 (Page 48 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 49 of 70 strategy President Biden is currently pursuing through executive - the order. 25 Indeed, Congress did enact such a data-transfer law similarly named "Protecting Americans' Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024" as the very next division of the legislation that contains the Act. Yet it chose to prohibit only “data broker[s]” from “mak[ing] available personally identifiable sensitive data of a United States. individual to any foreign adversary country or ... any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary." H.R. 815, div. I, § 2(a), 118th Cong., Pub. L. No. 118-50 (Apr. 24, 2024). 79. There are also models for industry-wide regulation that Congress could have followed from other jurisdictions. For example, the European Union's Digital Services Act requires certain platforms to make disclosures about their content-moderation policies and to provide regulators and researchers with access to their data so those researchers can assess if the platforms are systemically promoting or suppressing 25 See Exec. Order 14, 117, 89 Fed. Reg. 15421 (Mar. 1, 2024). 48 (Page 49 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 50 of 70 content with particular viewpoints. 26 Congress pursued none of these alternatives. 80. Congress did not even provide Petitioners with the process and fact-finding protections that the Act extends to all other companies -protections which themselves likely fall short of what the Constitution mandates. Other companies receive prior notice, followed by a presidential determination of (and public report on) the national security threat posed by the targeted application, and the submission to Congress. of classified evidence supporting that determination, Sec. 2(g)(3)(B), which then is subject to judicial review based on the actual reasons for the decision, not post hoc rationalizations. 81. Because Congress failed to try any of these less restrictive measures, or at a minimum to explain why these alternatives would not address the government's apparent concerns, the Act is not narrowly tailored. 82. The Act independently fails strict scrutiny because it is both under- and over-inclusive. The Act is under-inclusive because it 26 EU Reg. 2022/2065 arts. 15, 40(4), 42(2). 49 (Page 50 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 51 of 70 ignores the many ways in which other companies. - both foreign and domestic can pose the same risks to data security and promotion of misinformation supposedly posed by Petitioners. The government "cannot claim" that banning some types of foreign owned applications is "necessary" to prevent espionage and propaganda “while at the same time" allowing other types of platforms and applications that may "create the same problem.” Reed, 576 U.S. at 172. Put differently, the Act's “[u]nderinclusiveness raises serious doubts about whether the government is in fact pursuing the interest it invokes, rather than disfavoring a particular speaker or viewpoint.” Brown v. Ent. Merchants Ass'n, 564 U.S. 786, 802 (2011). 83. Most glaringly, the Act applies only to Petitioners and certain other platforms that allow users to generate and view "text, images, videos, real-time communications, or similar content.” Sec. 2(g)(2)(A). The Act's coverage is thus triggered not by whether an application. collects users' data, but whether it shows them “content." Accordingly, there is no necessary relationship between the Act's scope and Congress's apparent concern with risks to Americans' data security, which could (Page 51 of Total) 50

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 52 of 70 equally be posed by personal finance, navigation, fitness, or many other types of applications. 84. The Act also singles out Petitioners by exempting all other companies that operate any website or application "whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews." Sec. 2(g)(2)(B). But the Act does not explain why such applications, when (i) “foreign adversary controlled” under the Act's broad definition; and (ii) determined by the President to be a significant national security threat, could not likewise be used to collect data from Americans such as Americans' location information - or to spread misinformation. Nor does the Act explain why an entire company presents no threat simply because it operates a single website or application the “primary purpose” of which is posting “product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews." Sec. 2(g)(2)(B). The Act's differential treatment of this favored category of websites and applications also disregards the fact that there is voluminous content on Tik Tok containing product reviews, business reviews, and travel information and reviews. Yet TikTok and all ByteDance applications are ineligible for this exclusion. 51 (Page 52 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 53 of 70 85. More broadly, the Act ignores the reality that much of the data collected by Tik Tok is no different in kind from the data routinely collected by other applications and sources in today's online world, including by American companies like Google, Snap, and Meta. The Act also ignores that foreign countries, including China, can obtain such information on Americans in other ways such as through open-source research and hacking operations. 86. Likewise, the House Committee Report on an earlier version of the Act speculates that allowing source code development in China "potentially exposes U.S. users to malicious code, backdoor vulnerabilities, surreptitious surveillance, and other problematic activities tied to source code development."27 But those supposed risks arise for each of the many American companies that employ individuals in China to develop code. The Act, however, does not seek to regulate, much less prohibit, all online applications offered by companies that have offices in China or that otherwise employ Chinese nationals as software developers. 28 27 House Committee Report at 5. 28 See, e.g., Karen Freifeld & Jonathan Stempel, Former Google Engineer 52 (Page 53 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 54 of 70 87. Nor does the Act seek to cut off numerous other ways that Americans could be exposed to foreign propaganda. For instance, the Act leaves foreign nationals (and even adversarial governments themselves) free to operate cable television networks in the United States, spread propaganda through accounts on other online platforms that enable the sharing of user-generated content, or distribute copies of state-run newspapers physically or over the Internet (including by software applications) in the United States. 29 Indicted for Stealing AI Secrets to Aid Chinese Companies, Reuters (Mar. 6, 2024), https://perma.cc/6LYE-64J6. 29 The U.S. government has recognized that foreign government. propaganda is an industry-wide challenge for online platforms. See, e.g., Nat'l Intel. Council, Declassified Intelligence Community Assessment, Foreign Threats to the 2020 US Federal Elections (Mar. 10, 2021), https://perma.cc/VD3Y-VXSB. YouTube, for example, added disclaimers to certain channels that were reportedly being used to spread disinformation on behalf of the Russian government. Paresh Dave & Christopher Bing, Russian Disinformation on YouTube Draws Ads, Lacks Warning Labels - Researchers, Reuters (June 7, 2019), https://perma.cc/2BEJ-VKGW. Like others in the industry, TikTok publishes transparency reports on attempts by users to use the platform for government propaganda purposes. See TikTok, Countering Influence Operations (last visited May 6, 2024), https://perma.cc/AB39-S8FJ. 53 (Page 54 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 55 of 70 88. The Act is also over-inclusive because it applies to other Byte Dance Ltd.-owned applications that Congress has not shown and could not possibly prove pose the risks the Act apparently seeks to address. - 89. At a minimum, the Act fails intermediate scrutiny. Even if strict scrutiny did not apply, the Act would still fail intermediate scrutiny as a time, place, and manner restriction: the Act prohibits speech activity on TikTok at all times, in all places, and in all manners anywhere across the United States. To pass intermediate scrutiny, a law must be "narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.” McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 486 (2014). This means that it must not "burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests," Turner, 512 U.S. at 661-62, and "leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information," Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984). 90. For many of the same reasons the Act cannot satisfy strict scrutiny, it also cannot satisfy intermediate scrutiny: (Page 55 of Total) 54

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 56 of 70 91. As discussed supra ¶¶67-69, the government has failed to establish that its apparent data security and propaganda concerns with Tik Tok are non-speculative. And as discussed supra ¶¶ 73-81, the Act. burdens substantially more speech than necessary because there are many less restrictive alternatives Congress could have adopted to address any legitimate concerns. The Act also fails intermediate scrutiny because it “effectively prevents” TikTok Inc. “from reaching [its] intended audience" and thus "fails to leave open ample alternative means of communication." Edwards v. City of Coeur d'Alene, 262 F.3d 856, 866 (9th Cir. 2001). 92. Regardless of the level of scrutiny, the Act violates the First Amendment for two additional reasons. 93. The Act forecloses an entire medium of expression. First, by banning TikTok in the United States, the Act "foreclose[s] an entire medium of expression." City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 56 (1994). A "long line of Supreme Court cases indicates that such laws are almost never reasonable." Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach, 621 F.3d 1051, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2010). (Page 56 of Total) 55

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 57 of 70 94. The Act is constitutionally overbroad. Second, the Act is facially overbroad. A law is "overbroad if a substantial number of its. applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep." United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 473 (2010) (citation omitted). Here, for example, the government has never contended that all or even most of the content on TikTok (or any other Byte Dance-owned application) represents misinformation, or propaganda. Yet the Act shuts down all speech on ByteDance-owned applications at all times, in all places, and in all manners. That is textbook overbreadth. See, e.g., Bd. of Airport Comm'rs v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569, 574–75 (1987). disinformation, Ground 2: Unconstitutional Bill of Attainder 95. The Act is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Article I of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any bill of attainder. U.S. Const. art. I § 9, cl. 3 ("No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."). A bill of attainder is "legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups." United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 447 (1965). The protection against bills of attainder is “an implementation of 56 (Page 57 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 58 of 70 the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or more simply trial by legislature." Id. at 442. - 97. By singling out Petitioners for legislative punishment, the Act is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. 98. The Act inflicts "pains and penalties" that historically have been associated with bills of attainder. See Nixon v. Adm'r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 474 (1977). Historically, common "pains and penalties" included "punitive confiscation of property by the sovereign” and “a legislative enactment barring designated individuals or groups from participation in specified employments or vocations," among others. Id. As described above, the Act confiscates Petitioners' U.S. businesses by forcing ByteDance to shutter them within 270 days or sell on terms that are not commercially, technologically, or legally feasible. See supra ¶¶26-29. For the same reason, the Act bars Petitioners from operating in their chosen line of business. 99. "[V]iewed in terms of the type and severity of burdens imposed" on Petitioners, the Act's treatment of Petitioners cannot "reasonably ... be said to further nonpunitive legislative purposes." Nixon, 433 U.S. at 475–76. The Act transforms Petitioners into a “vilified 57 (Page 58 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 59 of 70 class" by explicitly prohibiting their current and future operations in the United States, without qualification or limitation, but does not extend the same treatment to other similarly situated companies. Foretich v. United States, 351 F.3d 1198, 1224 (D.C. Cir. 2003). 100. Moreover, in light of the less restrictive alternatives discussed above, there is no justification for automatically barring Petitioners' current and future operations in the United States (or those of its subsidiaries or successors) in perpetuity without providing them a meaningful opportunity to take corrective action. See Kaspersky Lab, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 909 F.3d 446, 456 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Indeed, the Act imposes this punishment uniquely on Petitioners without the process, and presidential determination of a significant national security threat, that Congress has afforded to everyone else. Expressly singling out Petitioners for these punitive burdens while at the same time adopting a statutory standard and decision-making process applicable to every other entity makes clear that Petitioners are subjected to a prohibited legislatively imposed punishment. 101. Moreover, while Petitioners can avoid the Act's prohibitions only via a wholesale divestment, all other companies 58 even those with (Page 59 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 60 of 70 Chinese ownership and determined by the President to present a "significant threat" to U.S. national security ― can avoid prohibition simply by operating a website or an application "whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews." Sec. 2(g)(2)(b). 102. Indeed, any other "adversary-controlled" company that operates an application exactly like TikTok, but also operates a website the primary purpose of which is to post product reviews, is left untouched, leaving a ready path for any company but those affiliated with Petitioners to circumvent the Act's prohibitions altogether. For all practical purposes, then, the Act applies to just one corporate group is a "Tik Tok bill," as congressional leaders have described it.30 - it 103. For all of these reasons, the Act constitutes an unconstitutional bill of attainder. 30 Rachel Dobkin, Mike Johnson's Letter Sparks New Flood of Republican Backlash, Newsweek (Apr. 17, 2024), https://perma.cc/Z5HD-7UVU (quoting letter from Speaker Johnson referencing the “TikTok_bill”); Senator Chuck Schumer, Majority Leader, to Colleagues (Apr. 5, 2024), https://perma.cc/J7Q4-9PGJ (referencing “TikTok legislation”). 59 (Page 60 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 61 of 70 Ground 3: Violation of Equal Protection 104. The Act also violates Petitioners' rights under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it singles Petitioners out for adverse treatment without any reason for doing so. 105. First, the Act deems any application offered by Petitioners to be a “foreign adversary controlled application" without notice or a presidential determination. Sec. 2(g)(3)(A). By contrast, applications offered by other companies "controlled by a foreign adversary" are deemed to be "foreign adversary controlled applications" only after notice. and a presidential determination that those companies present "significant threat[s]" to U.S. national security, a determination that must be supported by evidence submitted to Congress. Sec. 2(g)(2)(B); see supra 34(d). 106. That distinction imposes a dramatically heavier burden on Petitioners' free speech rights without any justification. The Act precludes the government from burdening the speech rights of any speakers other than Petitioners unless and until the President issues a public report on the specific national security concerns animating the 60 (Page 61 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 62 of 70 President's decision, provides support for that decision, and describes the assets requiring divestiture. Those protections ensure that the President must, at the very least, provide a detailed national security justification for his or her actions before burdening other speakers' speech a justification that then will provide the basis for judicial review. The Act imposes none of those requirements as a precondition for burdening Petitioners' speech it levies that burden by unexplained legislative fiat. — 107. Second, the Act denies Petitioners the exemption available to any other company that is purportedly “controlled by a foreign adversary." As noted, any application Petitioners offer is ipso facto deemed a "foreign adversary controlled application." By contrast, other companies "controlled by a foreign adversary" are exempt from the Act's definition of a "covered company," and thus from the Act's requirements, so long as they offer at least one application with the "primary purpose" of “allow[ing] users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews." Sec. 2(g)(2)(B). 108. There is no conceivable reason for treating Petitioners differently than all other similarly situated companies. Even if Congress 61 (Page 62 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 63 of 70 had valid interests in protecting U.S. users' data and controlling what content may be disseminated through global platforms that would be advanced through the Act, there is no reason why those concerns would support a ban on Petitioners' platforms without corresponding bans on other platforms. Nor is there any rational reason why Congress would ban Petitioners' platforms while allowing any other company "controlled by a foreign adversary" - regardless of the national security threat posed by that company to sidestep the Act's reach by simply offering an - application that “allows users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews," but changing nothing else about the company's operations, ownership structure, or other applications. 109. By treating Petitioners differently from others similarly situated, the Act denies Petitioners the equal protection of the law. Ground 4: Unconstitutional Taking 110. The Act effects an unlawful taking of private property without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. 111. The Takings Clause provides that “private property” shall not be "taken for public use, without just compensation." U.S. Const. amend. V, cl. 5. The Act does just that by shutting down ByteDance's 62 (Page 63 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 64 of 70 U.S. businesses or, to the extent any qualified divestiture alternative is even feasible (it is not), compelling ByteDance to sell those businesses. under fire-sale circumstances that guarantee inadequate compensation. 112. Petitioners have substantial property interests in, and associated with, their and their affiliates' U.S. operations. These include not only ByteDance Ltd.'s interest in TikTok Inc. and other U.S. businesses, but also the platforms and applications themselves. See Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 1, 11–13 (1949) (Takings Clause also protects losses to going-concern value of business). 113. If the Act's prohibitions take effect, they will deprive Petitioners of property protected by the Takings Clause. Absent a qualified divestiture, the Act will shutter Petitioners' businesses in the United States. And even if a qualified divestiture were feasible (it is not), any sale could be, at best, completed only at an enormous discount to the U.S. businesses' current market value, given the forced sale conditions. See BFP v. Resol. Tr. Corp., 511 U.S. 531, 537 (1994) (“[M]arket value, as it is commonly understood, has no applicability in the forced-sale context; indeed, it is the very antithesis of forced-sale value."). (Page 64 of Total) 63

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 65 of 70 114. Because the Act compels ByteDance "to relinquish specific, identifiable property" or forfeit "all economically beneficial uses," the Act effects a per se taking. Horne v. Dep't of Agric., 576 U.S. 350, 364-65 (2015); Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1019 (1992). 115. Alternatively, the Act inflicts a regulatory taking. Even when a law does not compel the physical invasion of property or deprive the property of all economically viable use, it still effects a taking "if [it] goes too far." Penn. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415 (1922). In determining when a law "goes too far," courts have typically looked to "several factors" identified in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978), namely, (a) “[t]he economic impact of the regulation”; (b) “the extent to which the regulation has interfered with reasonable investment-backed expectations"; and (c) "the character of the governmental action." The Act inflicts a regulatory taking under each of these three factors. 116. The Act does not compensate Petitioners (let alone provide just compensation) for the dispossession of their U.S. businesses. See United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369, 373 (1943). Prospective injunctive (Page 65 of Total) 64

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 66 of 70 relief is accordingly warranted. See, e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952). Requested Relief relief: Petitioners respectfully request that this Court grant the following A. Issue a declaratory judgment that the Act violates the U.S. Constitution; B. Issue an order enjoining the Attorney General from enforcing the Act; C. Enter judgment in favor of Petitioners; and D. Grant any further relief that may be appropriate. (Page 66 of Total) 65

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 67 of 70 DATED: May 7, 2024 Andrew J. Pincus Avi M. Kupfer MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: 202-263-3220 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Respectfully submitted, /s/ Alexander A. Berengaut Alexander A. Berengaut David M. Zionts Megan A. Crowley COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] John E. Hall Anders Linderot COVINGTON & BURLING LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, New York 10018 Telephone: (212) 841-1000 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners (Page 67 of Total) 66

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 68 of 70 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT TIKTOK INC., and BYTEDANCE LTD., V. ) Petitioners, No. 24-1113 MERRICK B. GARLAND, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Petitioners state as follows: ByteDance Ltd. is a privately held corporation incorporated in the Cayman Islands. ByteDance Ltd. subsidiaries provide a suite of more than a dozen products and services that allow people to connect with, create, and consume content on the Internet. ByteDance Ltd. has no (Page 68 of Total) 1

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 69 of 70 parent company, and no publicly traded company owns 10% or more of Byte Dance Ltd.'s stock. Tik Tok Inc. is a California-incorporated company that provides the TikTok platform in the United States. TikTok Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of TikTok LLC, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of TikTok Ltd. TikTok Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of ByteDance Ltd. TikTok Inc. has no other parent company, and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. (Page 69 of Total) 2 /s/Alexander A. Berengaut Alexander A. Berengaut Counsel for Petitioners

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 70 of 70 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 7th day of May, I caused copies of the foregoing Petition for Review and Corporate Disclosure Statement to be served upon the following recipients. By certified mail, postage prepaid: Merrick B. Garland Attorney General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 By hand delivery: Matthew M. Graves United States Attorney 601 D Street, NW Washington, DC 20579 /s/ Alexander A. Berengaut Alexander A. Berengaut Counsel for Petitioners (Page 70 of Total)

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 1 of 7 (Page 71 of Total) EXHIBIT A

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 2 of 7 (Page 72 of Total) H. R. 815-61 Fusion Development Strategy programs of the People's Republic of China, including the following: (1) A brief summary of each such identified field and its relevance to the military power and national security of the People's Republic of China. (2) The implications for the national security of the United States as a result of the leadership or dominance by the People's Republic of China in each such identified field and associated supply chains. (3) The identification of at least 10 entities domiciled in, controlled by, or directed by the People's Republic of China (including any subsidiaries of such entity), involved in each such identified field, and an assessment of, with respect to each such entity, the following: (A) Whether the entity has procured components from any known United States suppliers. (B) Whether any United States technology imported by the entity is controlled under United States regulations. (C) Whether United States capital is invested in the entity, either through known direct investment or passive investment flows. (D) Whether the entity has any connection to the Peo- ple's Liberation Army, the Military-Civil Fusion program of the People's Republic of China, or any other state-spon- sored initiatives of the People's Republic of China to sup- port the development of national champions. (c) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.-In this section, the term "appropriate congressional committees" means- (1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Rep- resentatives; (2) the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; (3) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; and (4) the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate. DIVISION H-PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CON- TROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. This division may be cited as the "Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act”. SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN APPLICATIONS. ADVERSARY CONTROLLED (a) IN GENERAL.— (1) PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS.-It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application by carrying out, within the land or maritime borders of the United States, any of the following:

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 3 of 7 (Page 73 of Total) H. R. 815-62 (A) Providing services to distribute, maintain, or update such foreign adversary controlled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application. (B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States. (2) APPLICABILITY.-Subject to paragraph (3), this sub- section shall apply― (A) in the case of an application that satisfies the definition of a foreign adversary controlled application pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(A), beginning on the date that is 270 days after the date of the enactment of this division; and (B) in the case of an application that satisfies the definition of a foreign adversary controlled application pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(B), beginning on the date that is 270 days after the date of the relevant determination of the President under such subsection. (3) EXTENSION. With respect to a foreign adversary con- trolled application, the President may grant a 1-time extension of not more than 90 days with respect to the date on which this subsection would otherwise apply to such application pursuant to paragraph (2), if the President certifies to Congress that- (A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified with respect to such application; (B) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture has been produced with respect to such application; and (C) there are in place the relevant binding legal agree- ments to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension. (b) DATA AND INFORMATION PORTABILITY TO ALTERNATIVE APPLICATIONS.-Before the date on which a prohibition under sub- section (a) applies to a foreign adversary controlled application, the entity that owns or controls such application shall provide, upon request by a user of such application within the land or maritime borders of United States, to such user all the available data related to the account of such user with respect to such application. Such data shall be provided in a machine readable format and shall include any data maintained by such application with respect to the account of such user, including content (including posts, photos, and videos) and all other account information. (c) EXEMPTIONS.— (1) EXEMPTIONS FOR QUALIFIED DIVESTITURES.-Subsection (a)— (A) does not apply to a foreign adversary controlled application with respect to which a qualified divestiture is executed before the date on which a prohibition under subsection (a) would begin to apply to such application; and

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 4 of 7 (Page 74 of Total) H. R. 815-63 (B) shall cease to apply in the case of a foreign adversary controlled application with respect to which a qualified divestiture is executed after the date on which a prohibition under subsection (a) applies to such applica- tion. (2) EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN NECESSARY SERVICES.-Sub- sections (a) and (b) do not apply to services provided with respect to a foreign adversary controlled application that are necessary for an entity to attain compliance with such sub- sections. (d) ENFORCEMENT.— (1) CIVIL PENALTIES.― (A) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION VIO- LATIONS. An entity that violates subsection (a) shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the amount that results from multiplying $5,000 by the number of users within the land or maritime borders of the United States determined to have accessed, maintained, or updated a foreign adversary controlled application as a result of such violation. (B) DATA AND INFORMATION VIOLATIONS.-An entity that violates subsection (b) shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the amount that results from multiplying $500 by the number of users within the land or maritime borders of the United States affected by such violation. (2) ACTIONS BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.-The Attorney Gen- eral- (A) shall conduct investigations related to potential violations of subsection (a) or (b), and, if such an investiga- tion results in a determination that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General shall pursue enforcement under paragraph (1); and (B) may bring an action in an appropriate district court of the United States for appropriate relief, including civil penalties under paragraph (1) or declaratory and injunctive relief. (e) SEVERABILITY.― (1) IN GENERAL.-If any provision of this section or the application of this section to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications of this section that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. (2) SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATIONS.-If the application of any provision of this section is held invalid with respect to a foreign adversary controlled application that satisfies the definition of such term pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(A), such invalidity shall not affect or preclude the application of the same provision of this section to such foreign adversary con- trolled application by means of a subsequent determination pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(B). (f) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this division may be construed― (1) to authorize the Attorney General to pursue enforce- ment, under this section, other than enforcement of subsection (a) or (b);

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 5 of 7 (Page 75 of Total) H. R. 815-64 (2) to authorize the Attorney General to pursue enforce- ment, under this section, against an individual user of a foreign adversary controlled application; or (3) except as expressly provided herein, to alter or affect any other authority provided by or established under another provision of Federal law. (g) DEFINITIONS.-In this section: (1) CONTROLLED BY A FOREIGN ADVERSARY.-The term "con- trolled by a foreign adversary" means, with respect to a covered company or other entity, that such company or other entity is- (A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country; (B) an entity with respect to which a foreign person or combination of foreign persons described in subpara- graph (A) directly or indirectly own at least a 20 percent stake; or (C) a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B). (2) COVERED COMPANY.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The term "covered company" means an entity that operates, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), a website, desktop application, mobile application, or aug- mented or immersive technology application that— (i) permits a user to create an account or profile to generate, share, and view text, images, videos, real- time communications, or similar content; (ii) has more than 1,000,000 monthly active users with respect to at least 2 of the 3 months preceding the date on which a relevant determination of the President is made pursuant to paragraph (3)(B); (iii) enables 1 or more users to generate or dis- tribute content that can be viewed by other users of the website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application; and (iv) enables 1 or more users to view content gen- erated by other users of the website, desktop applica- tion, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application. (B) EXCLUSION.—The term “covered company” does not include an entity that operates a website, desktop applica- tion, mobile application, or augmented or immersive tech- nology application whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews. a (3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION.―The term "foreign adversary controlled application" means website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by— (A) any of (i) ByteDance, Ltd.;

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 6 of 7 (Page 76 of Total) (ii) TikTok; H. R. 815-65 (iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or (iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or (B) a covered company that- (i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and (ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of (I) a public notice proposing such determina- tion; and (II) a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annex and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture. (4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY.-The term “foreign adversary country" means a country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code. (5) INTERNET HOSTING SERVICE.―The term "internet hosting service" means a service through which storage and computing resources are provided to an individual or organiza- tion for the accommodation and maintenance of 1 or more websites or online services, and which may include file hosting, domain name server hosting, cloud hosting, and virtual private server hosting. (6) QUALIFIED DIVESTITURE.—The term "qualified divesti- ture" means a divestiture or similar transaction that- (A) the President determines, through an interagency process, would result in the relevant foreign adversary controlled application no longer being controlled by a for- eign adversary; and (B) the President determines, through an interagency process, precludes the establishment or maintenance of any operational relationship between the United States operations of the relevant foreign adversary controlled application and any formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary, including any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or an agreement with respect to data sharing. (7) SOURCE CODE.-The term "source code" means the com- bination of text and other characters comprising the content, both viewable and nonviewable, of a software application, including any publishing language, programming language, pro- tocol, or functional content, as well as any successor languages or protocols. (8) UNITED STATES.-The term "United States" includes the territories of the United States. SEC. 3. JUDICIAL REVIEW. (a) RIGHT OF ACTION.-A petition for review challenging this division or any action, finding, or determination under this division

USCA Case #24-1113 Document #2053212 Filed: 05/07/2024 Page 7 of 7 (Page 77 of Total) H. R. 815-66 may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (b) EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.-The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to this division or any action, finding, or determination under this division. (c) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.-A challenge may only be brought― (1) in the case of a challenge to this division, not later than 165 days after the date of the enactment of this division; and (2) in the case of a challenge to any action, finding, or determination under this division, not later than 90 days after the date of such action, finding, or determination. DIVISION I-PROTECTING AMERICANS' DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024 SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. This division may be cited as the "Protecting Americans' Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024". SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE SENSITIVE DATA OF UNITED STATES INDIVIDUALS TO FOR- EIGN ADVERSARIES. (a) PROHIBITION.-It shall be unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, provide access to, or otherwise make available personally identifiable sensitive data of a United States individual to- (1) any foreign adversary country; or (2) any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary. (b) ENFORCEMENT BY FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.― (1) UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES.-A violation of this section shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or a deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). (2) POWERS OF COMMISSION.― (A) IN GENERAL.-The Commission shall enforce this section in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.Č. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this section. (B) PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.-Any person who vio- lates this section shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act. (3) AUTHORITY PRESERVED.-Nothing in this section may be construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any other provision of law. (c) DEFINITIONS.-In this section: (1) COMMISSION.-The term "Commission" means the Fed- eral Trade Commission.