High Court Grants Cert in Apple’s Challenge to Ninth Circuit Contempt Ruling in App Store Dispute

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Apple Inc.’s appeal of a civil contempt finding stemming from its App Store dispute with Epic Games, Inc. The case centers on a 2021 injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and a subsequent contempt order tied to Apple’s commission structure on external purchases.

According to a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Apple on May 21, a district court ruled in 2021 that Apple’s anti-steering rules violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The court also issued an injunction preventing Apple from barring developers from including buttons, external links, or other calls to action directing users to payment options outside Apple’s in-app payment (IAP) system. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction, and Apple’s first petition for certiorari challenging that ruling was denied in January 2024.

Apple then implemented a new commission of 12% to 27% on purchases made through external links, along with restrictions on link placement, design, and language. Epic moved to enforce the injunction, arguing Apple’s new policies effectively nullified it. The district court found Apple in contempt on April 30, 2025, concluding that Apple had violated both the literal text and the spirit of the injunction, and barred Apple from collecting any commission on external purchases in the U.S. App Store. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the contempt finding on December 11, 2025, and largely upheld the resulting remedies, though it vacated the complete commission ban and remanded for the district court to enter either a purgeable civil sanction or a properly tailored modification. The court then later denied rehearing en banc on March 30, 2026, with no judge calling for a vote.

Apple’s petition presented two questions; the first asked whether a court may hold a party in civil contempt for violating an injunction’s “spirit” when the injunction is silent as to the specific conduct at issue, or whether contempt must instead rest on a clear and unambiguous violation of the order’s text. The second asked whether the Ninth Circuit created an improper antitrust exception to the complete relief principle the Supreme Court addressed in Trump v. CASA, Inc., or otherwise disregarded that decision’s limits. Apple argued that the Ninth Circuit’s approach conflicted with decisions from the First, Second, Third, and Fifth Circuits, which Apple said confine the contempt inquiry to the four corners of the underlying order. Apple further argued that extending the injunction to developers beyond Epic exceeded the bounds of equitable authority recognized in Califano v. Yamasaki and reaffirmed in CASA, contending the combination of the spirit-based contempt finding and the broad injunction “may reshape the global app marketplace.”

In its brief in opposition filed June 4, Epic argued that the Ninth Circuit did not hold Apple in contempt for violating only the injunction’s spirit, asserting the appellate court found that Apple’s commission violated the injunction’s text because it had a “prohibitive effect” on steering. Epic maintained there was no circuit conflict, characterizing the authority Apple cited as consistent with the anti-evasion principle the Supreme Court set out in McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co.

Moreover, Epic argued the Ninth Circuit applied, rather than departed from, the complete relief test from CASA, finding that “an injunction limited to Epic would fail to address the full harm caused by the anti-steering provision.” Epic also argued the case presented a poor vehicle for the Court to elaborate on CASA, noting that antitrust injunctions are uncommon and that the underlying claim arose under a state unfair competition statute rather than federal antitrust law.

A coalition of technology trade associations, including the Computer & Communications Industry Association, Chamber of Progress, NetChoice, and the Software & Information Industry Association, filed an amicus brief on June 3 supporting Apple’s petition. The amici argued that the district court’s orders imposed platform-wide changes affecting all developers rather than relief tailored to Epic’s specific injury, and that the orders implicated Apple’s speech interests by dictating how Apple may present third-party content. The brief further argued that grounding contempt liability in an injunction’s unstated purpose conflicts with the specificity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.

In its reply brief filed June 9, Apple reiterated that the Ninth Circuit’s standard for contempt “directly conflicts with the text-based standard applied in other circuits” and maintained that the case presented an appropriate vehicle for the Court to address the limits of injunctive relief following CASA.