The most complete ban is still set in November, about a week after the presidential election.
An order that could have blocked the popular video sharing app TikTok in smartphone app stores in the US has been temporarily blocked.
The order, from Donald Trump’s administration, was due to take effect at 11.59pm on Sunday.
The most complete ban is still set in November, about a week after the presidential election.
Judge Carl Nichols of the U.S. District Court in Columbia, however, refused to postpone the ban.
The decision followed an emergency hearing on Sunday morning when TikTok’s lawyers argued that the closure of the app store would infringe on the company’s rights to First Amendment and damage the business in an irreversible manner.
Earlier this year, the US president said TikTok was a threat to national security and should sell its US operations to US companies or be banned from the country.
TikTok, owned by Chinese company ByteDance, wants to secure a deal reached last week in which it will work with Oracle, a major database-software company, and Walmart in an effort to secure the blessing of both Chinese and American governments.
In the meantime, the struggle to keep the app available in the US.
Donald Trump talks about an American company that buys TikTok.
Judge Nichols did not explicitly state his opinion, but he did put his judgment in favor.
In a dispute with Judge Nichols, TikTok attorney John Hall said TikTok is more than just an app, because it serves as a “modern version of the city square”.
“If that ban begin working at midnight, the results get worse quickly,” Mr Hall said.
Proponents of TikTok also claim that the ban on the app will affect the ability of tens of thousands of viewers and content creators to display themselves each month and will also damage its ability to hire new talent.
Justice Department spokesman Daniel Schwei said Chinese companies were not only independent and subject to interventions that forced their cooperation with intelligence agencies.
The Department of Justice has also argued that such economic regulations are usually not subject to initial review of the amendment.