It sounds like the Appeals Court basically punted it to the SC (all emphases my own):
"Under intermediate scrutiny, the Act complies with the
First Amendment “if it advances important governmental inter-
ests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not
burden substantially more speech than necessary to further
those interests.” Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC (Turner II),
520 U.S. 180, 189 (1997) (citing United States v. O’Brien, 391
U.S. 367, 377 (1968)). Under strict scrutiny, the Act violates
the First Amendment unless the Government can “prove that
the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly
tailored to achieve that interest.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert,
576 U.S. 155, 171 (2015)
"We think it clear that some level of heightened scrutiny is
required. The question whether intermediate or strict scrutiny
applies is difficult because the TikTok-specific provisions are
facially content neutral, yet the Government justifies the Act in
substantial part by reference to a foreign adversary’s ability to
manipulate content seen by Americans. No Supreme Court
case directly addresses whether such a justification renders a
law content based, thereby triggering strict scrutiny. There are
reasonable bases to conclude that intermediate scrutiny is
appropriate even under these circumstances. We need not,
however, definitively decide that question because we con-
clude the Act “passes muster even under the more demanding
standard.”"
I'm not sure how you read that from this. The last sentence suggests that the appeals court believes there's no need to decide if strict or intermediate scrutiny applies, because they believe the government's justification satisfies strict scrutiny.
They do believe that intermediate scrutiny could be appropriate. Sure TikTok can (and presumably will appeal), but to SCOTUS, they will only take up the case if they believe in the possibility that the appeals court erred on two things: that 1) strict scrutiny is required, and 2) the facts of the case don't pass muster when strict scrutiny is applied. That feels like a pretty high bar for a potential TikTok appeal to clear.
Honestly I think TikTok's best hope is Trump. Either he somehow convinces Congress to repeal the ban law, or he instructs his DoJ to not enforce it.
My reading (IANAL) is that if intermediate scrutiny were to apply, the bill holds. If strict scrutiny were to apply, the bill doesn't hold. There isn't enough SC precedent to decide which scrutiny should apply. (thus implying that the SC needs to make that determination).
Then they concluding by saying "anyway, it doesn't really matter" but that seems weak to me.
"Under intermediate scrutiny, the Act complies with the First Amendment “if it advances important governmental inter- ests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests.” Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC (Turner II), 520 U.S. 180, 189 (1997) (citing United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968)). Under strict scrutiny, the Act violates the First Amendment unless the Government can “prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 171 (2015)
"We think it clear that some level of heightened scrutiny is required. The question whether intermediate or strict scrutiny applies is difficult because the TikTok-specific provisions are facially content neutral, yet the Government justifies the Act in substantial part by reference to a foreign adversary’s ability to manipulate content seen by Americans. No Supreme Court case directly addresses whether such a justification renders a law content based, thereby triggering strict scrutiny. There are reasonable bases to conclude that intermediate scrutiny is appropriate even under these circumstances. We need not, however, definitively decide that question because we con- clude the Act “passes muster even under the more demanding standard.”"