[flagged]
> However, the Court has emphasized that legislation does not violate the Bill of Attainder Clause simply because it places legal burdens on a specific individual or group.2 Rather, as discussed in more detail below, a bill of attainder must also inflict punishment.
Divestment isn't a punishment for a crime. Nobody is accusing Tik Tok of having committed a crime. Congress simply doesn't want a foreign power hostile to the U.S. to control a business that's popular in the U.S.
Prosaically, what individual or group is being declared guilty here? The law requires TikTok to have new ownership; it doesn’t seize it, or set a price for it, which might therefore harm shareholders. Calling this attainder seems like a pretty big stretch to me. And, it seems Bytedance legal counsel didn’t think this would fly as well.
The difference here is that Tik Tok is not being accused of a crime and is not being punished for some crime. It's applying a restriction on foreign ownership not to punish Tik Tok for some past act, but because Congress is worried about the risks arising from that ownership in the future.
People who for decades subscribed to the notion that "emanations from penumbras" are a source of constitutional law don't have any room to talk about judicial activism.
It started with the Marshall Court and never stopped.