SCOTUS Rejects Apple’s Request To Pause Order Holding It In Contempt
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan on Tuesday rejected an emergency request from Apple in the company’s ongoing legal battle with Epic Games, delivering another significant blow to the tech giant’s control over its App Store business model.
Kagan, who oversees emergency matters originating from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, denied Apple’s request to pause a lower court ruling that found the company in civil contempt.
The Supreme Court’s Public Information Office confirmed the decision in a brief one-sentence notice sent to reporters.
The dispute stems from Epic Games’ long-running antitrust lawsuit challenging Apple’s restrictions on in-app purchases made through the App Store.
Epic, best known as the creator of the massively popular video game Fortnite, has argued that Apple unfairly uses its market dominance to force developers into paying excessive commissions through Apple-controlled payment systems.
A federal judge previously ruled that Apple could not block developers from directing users toward alternative purchasing options outside the App Store ecosystem.
The judge later determined Apple violated that order by implementing policies that still discouraged outside purchases and by imposing significant fees on transactions completed through third-party systems after users clicked external links.
Apple appealed the ruling and on Monday formally asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
“Before this Court can decide whether to grant review and hear oral argument in the appeal that Apple plans to file, a stay is now needed to prevent Apple from having to litigate its commission rate under a mistaken and prejudicial contempt label—proceedings that could reshape the app market worldwide,” Apple argued in its filing.
Epic Games pushed back strongly, urging the Supreme Court to stay out of the matter entirely.
“Apple’s willful contempt,” Epic argued, “has effectively stymied the restoration of competition for over two years, allowing it to collect billions of dollars in what the Ninth Circuit has previously affirmed were supracompetitive fees.”
Epic’s response reportedly reached reporters less than an hour before Justice Kagan denied Apple’s request without referring the matter to the full Supreme Court.
The speed of the rejection suggested the request failed to gain significant traction.
The legal fight has become one of the most important antitrust battles involving Big Tech companies in recent years, with major implications for app developers, digital marketplaces, and consumer access worldwide.
Critics of Apple argue the company has used its App Store dominance to suppress competition and extract massive fees from developers, while supporters maintain Apple’s system helps protect user privacy, security, and platform quality.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene for now leaves Apple facing continued legal pressure and potentially broader challenges to its App Store business practices.
The Supreme Court also made headlines earlier this week in a separate high-profile case involving pandemic-era free speech disputes.
The justices declined to hear an appeal brought by former John Stockton and several doctors challenging disciplinary actions tied to COVID-19-related speech and medical opinions.
The case involved lawsuits against the Washington Medical Commission and the Washington State Attorney General’s Office over sanctions imposed on physicians accused of spreading COVID-related misinformation.
Stockton, who became a prominent critic of pandemic mandates and vaccine policies, joined the lawsuit alongside several physicians in 2024.
The plaintiffs argued that state rules during the pandemic improperly restricted doctors from challenging what they described as the “mainstream” COVID narrative.
Several doctors involved in the case had faced professional discipline after publishing articles and blog posts questioning COVID testing, vaccine effectiveness, and alternative treatments.
The lawsuit claimed those disciplinary actions violated First Amendment protections and relied on vague enforcement standards.
One physician, retired ophthalmologist Richard Eggleston, faced sanctions after writing an opinion article questioning aspects of COVID policy that was later reported to regulators by a reader.
Another doctor, Thomas Siler, was also accused of unprofessional conduct after complaints were filed regarding content published on his personal blog.
Attorneys representing the Washington Attorney General’s Office had argued the case should be dismissed because subsequent state court rulings had already addressed the constitutional issues involved.
Earlier this year, the Washington Supreme Court declined to review a separate appellate ruling holding that the First Amendment prevents the Washington Medical Commission from disciplining doctors over online commentary involving COVID treatment and prevention.
By refusing to hear Stockton’s appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively allowed that lower court ruling protecting physician speech to remain in place.