WASHINGTON — A federal judge has issued an injunction against President Trump’s executive order banning the Chinese social media app WeChat from carrying out commercial transactions in the United States after Sunday, presenting at least a temporary setback in the president’s efforts to block an app that he has labeled a national security threat.
The ruling, which came Sunday morning, will temporarily halt Mr. Trump’s efforts to bar WeChat, which is owned by the Chinese company Tencent Holdings, from operating in the United States. The Trump administration has said the app offers China a conduit to collect data on Americans and to censor the news and information shared by WeChat’s more than a billion monthly active users.
In her decision, Judge Laurel Beeler of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California said that she had chosen to grant the motion because the plaintiffs had raised serious questions about whether the order would harm First Amendment rights, and that it placed significant hardship on the plaintiffs.
The U.S. government could now appeal to the Ninth Circuit court to seek to overturn the stay.
The motion for a preliminary injunction was filed Aug. 27 by the U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, a nonprofit group whose trustees include several prominent Chinese-American lawyers. The group says it has no connection to Tencent Holdings or any of its affiliates.
In a statement, the group called the ruling “an important and hard-fought victory” against an order that was “a serious violation of the Constitutional rights of WeChat users in the U.S.”
The alliance has argued that Mr. Trump’s attempt to ban WeChat violates several constitutional provisions, including the right to free speech, due process and equal protection against arbitrary discrimination.
Thomas R. Burke, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said they were “grateful” for the decision.
“Never before has a President sought to ban an entire social media platform — used by a minority community to communicate — with such discriminatory animus and haste,” he said.
In their arguments, the plaintiffs also pointed to the president’s anti-Chinese statements around the time he issued the WeChat order — including referring to the coronavirus pandemic as the “China flu,” and saying that China would own the United States if he was not re-elected — arguing that such racial comments were aimed at bolstering his re-election campaign.
In its arguments, the U.S. government had described China’s tech industry as a threat to national security, citing reports that identified Tencent and WeChat as a growing risk and a source of censorship and Chinese government propaganda.
The legal battle followed a surprise Aug. 6 executive order signed by Mr. Trump that would bar any commercial transactions with WeChat or the Chinese-owned social media app TikTok by any person or involving any property within the jurisdiction of the United States. The administration threatened fines of up to $1 million and up to 20 years in prison for violations of the order.
In rules issued on Friday, the Department of Commerce said it would bar both WeChat and TikTok from American app stores beginning Sunday and would prohibit certain transactions between WeChat and American companies.
But on Saturday, the president approved an investment in TikTok by American software maker Oracle and Walmart that he said would resolve his national security concerns, and the Commerce Department said it would delay its penalties on TikTok by at least one week.
Given the judge’s ruling on Sunday, neither of the apps will be banned as of midnight Sunday.
Tencent did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Commerce Department also did not provide an immediate comment.
The Department of Justice, which argued on behalf of the government, did not immediately respond to a request for a comment. During a hearing on Saturday, one of its lawyers argued that the order was well tailored to address the threat “posed by WeChat and not penalize people who speak only for the purpose of providing their personal or business information.”
In a declaration filed in August in support of the lawsuit, Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, compared the executive order to a “complete ban of a newspaper, a TV channel, or a website used by the tens of millions of U.S. citizens.”
“Never has the government tried to shut down entirely a public forum used by millions of Americans,” Mr. Chemerinsky wrote, calling it an “unprecedented” restriction on speech that was motivated by “anti-Chinese animus.”
“The chilling effect on the exercise of free speech caused by the Executive Order is profound and constitutionally unsupportable,” he added.