On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court granted Apple’s petition in Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 25-1311, with one limiting phrase: “limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.” That phrase excludes Apple’s App Store commission and steering rules from review, even though the grant is widely treated as the Court agreeing to revisit the App Store ruling itself.
It did not. Question 1, as Apple’s own petition framed it, is a procedural question about the standard for imposing a civil contempt sanction. The App Store rules the Ninth Circuit already ruled on are not part of what the Justices agreed to decide. Apple’s opening brief on that narrower question is due September 14, 2026, the same Monday iOS 27 becomes available, a scheduling overlap with no connection between the two.
What Question 1 actually asks
Apple’s cert petition presented Question 1 as a circuit split over the standard courts should apply before holding a party in civil contempt of an injunction. That is a question about enforcement procedure, not about whether Apple’s underlying App Store conduct is lawful. The Ninth Circuit had already found Apple in contempt of a 2021 injunction over how it handled developer communications about outside payment options, and Question 1 is about the legal test for that finding, not the App Store commission structure that produced the original injunction.
Don’t miss the best of The Mac Observer
Set us as a preferred source and our Apple reporting ranks higher in your Google Search results and Discover feed — one tap, no account changes.
What Apple asked for that the Court did not grant
Apple’s petition raised a second argument: that the Ninth Circuit “reaffirmed and expanded its ‘antitrust exception'” to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA, and that the decision “all but renders CASA a dead letter in the nation’s largest circuit.” The Court did not grant certiorari on that argument. Only Question 1 survived to become part of the case now heading toward briefing.
| What Apple’s petition raised | Did the Court grant it |
|---|---|
| Question 1: the civil contempt sanction standard | Yes, granted June 30, 2026 |
| Whether the Ninth Circuit expanded an antitrust exception to Trump v. CASA | No |
| Review of the App Store commission and steering rules themselves | No |
What the Ninth Circuit already decided, and what stays that way
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling below affirmed the district court on message screens and dynamic links, meaning Apple must allow developers to communicate with users about outside purchase options through those mechanisms. It held that total bans on commissions and on link restrictions were overbroad. It also ordered a remand for the district court to decide what commission, if any, Apple may charge on purchases made after a user links out of an app, without suggesting a rate itself. None of that is disturbed by the Supreme Court’s limited grant, because none of it is Question 1.
| Key facts | Detail |
|---|---|
| Docket number | 25-1311 |
| Cert granted | June 30, 2026, limited to Question 1 |
| Question 1 subject | Civil contempt sanction standard, a circuit split |
| Not granted | The App Store merits; the Trump v. CASA antitrust-exception argument |
| Ninth Circuit remand | District court to set any linked-out commission; no rate proposed by the appeals court |
Why the distinction matters for anyone following the case
Apple has spent much of September on other announcements, including the product lineup it introduced days before this appeal reached its current stage, but none of that coverage changes what the Supreme Court actually granted. Treating this as a fresh Supreme Court review of the App Store overstates what the docket actually shows. The Court is deciding a contempt-procedure question that arose from how Apple complied with an existing injunction, not whether the App Store’s commission model is lawful. The commission and steering questions themselves stayed with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and the pending remand, both untouched by the cert grant. Apple’s own petition drew that line by presenting Question 1 separately from its App Store arguments, and the Court’s order preserved that separation by granting only the narrower one. That distinction covers the App Store rules that apply to every app sold on devices such as the iPhone 18 Pro and the iPhone Duo, neither of which is at issue in the appeal itself.
What Apple has not said
- Whether it intends to seek review of the App Store merits in a separate filing.
- Any position on what commission rate it would accept for linked-out purchases, a question still with the district court on remand.
- A response to characterizations of the grant as broader than Question 1.
Today is Saturday, September 12, 2026. Apple’s opening brief on Question 1 is due Monday, and the docket in No. 25-1311 remains the only confirmed record of what the Court agreed to decide, and what it left with the Ninth Circuit and the district court on remand.
