Case: Zhaocheng Tan v. Donald Trump
26-01047 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Filed Date: March 5, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenges the Trump Administration’s handling of the 2024 law (the “TikTok law”) passed by Congress, which prohibits TikTok’s distribution in the United States unless ByteDance—TikTok’s Chinese owner— “severed itself from the app’s domestic operations” by January 19, 2025.
Two California software engineers who own shares in Alphabet and Meta filed this petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 5, 2026, against President Trump and the Attorney General in their official capacities. The petitioners alleged that Trump illegally gave ByteDance five deadline extensions and directed the Attorney General not to enforce the TikTok law. On January 22, 2026, Trump allegedly approved a sale of TikTok's U.S. assets to Oracle, MGX, and Susquehanna International Group at a significantly undervalued price. The deal was structured so that ByteDance retained ownership of the recommendation algorithm, continued operating e-commerce and marketing, and kept a seat on the American entity's board. The petitioners argued that ByteDance could still control the essential elements of TikTok and would be able to push Chinese propaganda while censoring content it disapproved of.
The petitioners claimed that this sale caused them to suffer financially because they had invested in competitors to TikTok’s American operations. By sanctioning this allegedly unlawful deal, the government had legally impeded the petitioners' financial recovery. The petitioners brought claims for ultra vires action, equitable relief, and violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Their APA claim rested on the TikTok law's requirement that the Attorney General investigate violations of the statute. They sought (1) declarations that the extensions and sale approval were unlawful, (2) an injunction directing the Attorney General to conduct the required investigations, and (3) attorneys' fees.
On April 6, 2026, the petitioners filed an amended petition, adding factual allegations that President Trump rejected a competing bid—which complied with the TikTok law—of 6 billion dollars higher because the competitors had not contributed to Trump financially, as the winners did. A third unnamed petitioner—a former ByteDance employee—was also added, with allegations that the illegal sale (1) reduced the value of his stock below what the alternative sale would have yielded and (2) cost him his job when his U.S.-based position was deemed redundant. The amended petition also elaborated on ByteDance's effective control, asserting that TikTok's domestic and global entities share software systems, AI models, and personnel, and that ByteDance continues to receive aggregated American user data.
The defendants moved to dismiss the amended petition on May 21, 2026, arguing that the petitioners missed the 90-day statute of limitations because the last reviewable governmental action occurred on September 25, 2025—more than 90 days before the March 5, 2026 filing. They also contended that the petitioners lacked standing because (1) their alleged financial harm—diminished stock value in TikTok competitors—is the kind of corporate injury that shareholders cannot assert under controlling case law, (2) those injuries were speculative regardless, and (3) the third petitioner's termination stemmed from a third party's independent actions, not the defendants'.
On June 1, 2026, the petitioners responded that the final reviewable government action occurred on January 22, 2026—when Trump completed and announced approval of the deal he had been negotiating—making the petition timely. They also contended that they had cognizable injuries because (1) their data was being illegally shared with ByteDance, (2) they lost money because of the deal, (3) the unnamed petitioner lost his job, and (4) courts have allowed shareholder suits under the APA as a matter of public policy. The defendants replied on June 8, 2026.
On July 20, 2026, the D.C. Circuit referred the motion to dismiss to a merits panel consisting of Circuit Judges Karen L. Henderson and Robert L. Wilkins. The court directed the parties to file motions to govern further proceedings within 30 days.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Vedant Vamshidhar (7/24/2026)
Maddy Ligon (4/13/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72369202/parties/zhaocheng-tan-v-donald-trump/
Ballou, Brendan (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72369202/zhaocheng-tan-v-donald-trump/
Last updated Aug. 30, 2026, 3:24 a.m.
Docket for: Zhaocheng Tan v. Donald Trump
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 5, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two California software engineers who own shares in Alphabet and Meta.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
DONALD TRUMP
PAM BONDI
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Other Dockets:
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 26-01047
Special Case Type(s):
Appellate Court is initial court
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:
Case Summary of Zhaocheng Tan v. Donald Trump, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47893/ (last updated 4/13/2026).