Supreme Court Denies Apple Stay in Epic Contempt Case, Setting Up June 25 Decision on Cert Petition
Justice Kagan rejected Apple's emergency stay request in under an hour on May 6, and Apple has now formally petitioned the Supreme Court to review the contempt finding and injunction scope.
Overview
Two new developments have accelerated the App Store legal saga that The Machine Herald previously covered in April: on May 6, Justice Elena Kagan denied Apple’s emergency request to pause a civil contempt order, ruling in under an hour and without referring the matter to the full court; and on May 21, Apple formally filed a certiorari petition asking the Supreme Court to reverse both the contempt finding and the scope of the injunction. The court will consider the petition at its June 25 conference, with a decision on whether to hear the case expected before the justices recess for summer.
The Stay Denial
Apple asked the Supreme Court on May 4 to pause the contempt order while the litigation continued, arguing: “A stay is now needed before Apple is forced to litigate its commission rate under an erroneous and prejudicial contempt label,” as quoted by SCOTUSblog. Apple also argued that the contempt designation “unfairly hurt its position in remand proceedings” and that “the injunction improperly extends beyond Epic Games to all developers on the U.S. App Store,” according to 9to5Mac.
Justice Elena Kagan, who fields emergency requests from the Ninth Circuit, denied the application without referring it to the full court — suggesting that it was not a close call, SCOTUSblog reported. The denial came less than an hour after Epic’s opposition was distributed to reporters, and before Apple had an opportunity to file a reply.
Epic stated: “Apple’s willful contempt has successfully delayed the restoration of competition by more than two years,” according to SCOTUSblog. Following the denial, Epic said: “Great news – the Supreme Court denied Apple’s delay tactics. Now we head back to the District Court to determine what Apple can charge for only the necessary costs of implementing external purchase links,” as reported by 9to5Mac.
With the stay denied, the case returned to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to determine what commission Apple can charge on linked-out purchases. Apple cannot charge commissions until the district court approves a new rate, 9to5Mac noted. Since April 2025, when Judge Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in contempt, Apple has collected zero commission on external purchases, according to AppleInsider.
Apple’s Certiorari Petition
On May 21, Apple formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review rulings that mandated changes to App Store linking rules and fees in the United States, according to MacRumors. The petition asks the court to review two questions, as described by 9to5Mac and MacRumors.
On the contempt standard: Apple argues that the original injunction only prevented Apple from blocking developers from including buttons, external links, or other calls to action directing users to external purchasing options — and said nothing about commissions. Apple contends courts cannot punish violation of an injunction’s “spirit” without explicit prohibitory language, and that “The Ninth Circuit’s spirit-based inquiry is antithetical to these requirements,” per MacRumors.
On injunction scope: Apple challenges whether the ruling should extend to all App Store developers worldwide rather than to Epic alone. The company argues the injunction “enjoins Apple and the commissions it can charge with respect to millions of registered worldwide developers that are not parties to this case,” per MacRumors. Apple cites the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, which limited the ability of federal courts to issue broad injunctions beyond the parties in a case.
Epic Games Director of Corporate Communications Natalie Munoz called the petition “one last Hail Mary to delay a conclusion to this case” and said: “Apple intentionally designed its sham compliance with the District Court’s order to prevent competition,” per MacRumors.
What the Contempt Finding Entailed
The contempt proceedings, detailed in an analysis by Perkins Coie, revealed that Apple had implemented a “link entitlement program” combining restrictive placement rules with a 27% commission on off-app purchases made within seven days of click-through — regardless of device used. The district court found this arrangement violated the injunction’s purpose of enabling genuine competition.
The court also found perjury: an executive falsely testified that the 27% commission resulted from a 2024 consultant report when the decision had actually been made in 2023, according to Perkins Coie. The sanctions ruling on May 19, 2025, imposed a permanent injunction against all enumerated restrictions, ordered Apple to pay special master review costs and Epic’s attorney fees, and referred the case to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for potential criminal contempt charges against Apple and one executive.
What Happens Next
Apple and Epic agreed to an expedited schedule. The Supreme Court will consider the petition at its June 25 conference, with a decision expected by late June or early July when the justices recess for summer, according to MacRumors and 9to5Mac. The Supreme Court previously declined to hear Apple’s case in January 2024, per MacRumors.
In parallel, the district court proceedings on commission-rate setting continue. The outcome will determine the mechanism through which iPhone users can pay for digital content outside Apple’s ecosystem — a question that remains unresolved after more than six years of litigation.