In its ongoing legal confrontation with Epic Games over App Store regulations, Apple has recently cited a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court ruling concerning President Trump’s birthright citizenship directive. This action is part of Apple’s effort against two injunctions that were granted in relation to its antitrust case with Epic Games.
In a submission to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Apple claims that the June Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. CASA bolsters its case to overturn the injunctions. The key point of Apple’s argument is that the Supreme Court’s decision shows that federal judges lack the power to issue universal injunctions, which Apple asserts indicates that the district court overstepped its jurisdiction by applying remedies concerning the App Store to all developers in the United States, instead of just to Epic Games.
Apple’s submission reads, “Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. __, (2025), affirms that the district court’s civil contempt order cannot be upheld, and that the district court wrongly broadened its injunctions—both new and old—to include nonparties.” The company argues that the district court misapplied civil contempt as a punitive tool rather than as a means to ensure compliance with an injunction, which is its intended function.
Moreover, Apple contends that the district court did not have the authority to extend its injunctions to all developers, as the Supreme Court’s ruling made it clear that federal courts are only able to offer complete relief between the involved parties. Apple highlights that Epic Games chose to pursue its case on its own and did not represent other developers, rendering the broad application of the injunction unsuitable.
In this regard, Apple is asking the appeals court to annul the second injunction entirely and to direct the district court to reassess the first injunction in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in CASA.
Furthermore, Apple has reiterated its earlier argument that the solutions outlined in the second injunction, especially the “zero-commission” rule that bars Apple from charging fees on outside transactions, surpass the parameters of the original order.
As the case progresses, the repercussions of the Supreme Court’s ruling and the outcome of Apple’s appeal could have a substantial effect on the realm of app distribution and developer relationships within the App Store environment.
