U.S. Supreme Court Will Consider Challenge to Contempt Order in Federal Antitrust and Unfair Competition Case

I. Background

A) Epic Games’ Litigation Against Apple and 2021 Injunction

In the underlying litigation, Epic Games alleged that Apple violated antitrust and unfair competition laws by engaging in anti-steering behavior related to purchases on Apple’s in-app payment system. Apple received a percentage of payments made through this system, and Epic Games argued that Apple prohibited app developers from informing users about alternative payment options.  

The district court held that Apple’s anti-steering rules violated California’s Unfair Competition Law but rejected the claim that the conduct violated federal antitrust laws. The court enjoined Apple from prohibiting developers from directing customers to other payment methods. The 9th Circuit affirmed and further tailored the injunctive relief. 

B) The District Court’s Contempt Order

After the injunction went into effect, Epic Games challenged Apple’s actions, including Apple’s new restrictions and commissions. Specifically, Epic argued that, by charging a 27% commission on off-app purchases, Apple violated the injunction, among other things. Apple responded that the injunction does not mention commissions. After a hearing, the district court concluded that Apple “violated the literal text” and the “spirit” of the injunction, noting that Apple had sought to “evade the injunction’s goals.” The 9th Circuit affirmed the contempt finding, agreeing that Apple violated the injunction.  

Apple then sought certiorari on this holding, arguing that the circuit courts are split about the standards for assessing civil contempt. Apple stated that some circuits confine this inquiry to the “four corners” of the injunctive relief order, requiring that the party violate the “clear and unambiguous” text of the order before finding the party in contempt. Apple argued that, in contrast, the 9th Circuit uses an “atextual” approach, looking to whether the party violated the injunction’s “spirit,” even if the injunction is silent about the alleged injunction-violating conduct. Epic Games argued that there is no such circuit split.

II. Question the Supreme Court Will Consider 

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the following question: “Whether a court may hold a party in civil contempt based on a violation of an injunction’s ‘spirit’ where the injunction is silent as to the conduct upon which contempt is based, as the Ninth Circuit holds; or, instead, whether a court must ground a finding of civil contempt on the violation of an order that clearly and unambiguously proscribes the precise conduct at issue, as other circuits hold.”

The Court refused to consider the actual breadth of the injunction at the controversy’s center. Specifically, the Court declined to review “[w]hether the Ninth Circuit has properly created an ‘antitrust’ or ‘competition’ exception to Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025), and the longstanding equitable principles on which CASA rests, or otherwise disregarded CASA’s limits.” Apple had asserted that the CASA case limits a federal court’s authority to issue injunctive relief as to nonparties. Apple argued that the 9th Circuit’s decision to uphold the injunction went beyond these limits by extending it to nonparty developers. Apple also argued that creating an “antitrust exception” here is “more extreme” because antitrust liability was not found in this case. Epic Games argued that the 9th Circuit did not create an alleged antitrust exception.

III. Potential Implications for Antitrust Cases 

The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision about how injunctions are interpreted will impact litigants in many types of federal cases, including in federal antitrust cases:

• If the Court determines that a party can be held in contempt for violating an injunction’s “spirit,” this would effectively broaden the actual scope of any district court injunction and create uncertainty and risk for parties regarding what is and is not permitted. This is particularly relevant for antitrust cases as they result at times in lengthy and detailed injunctions.
• U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) civil antitrust settlements that are reviewed under the Tunney Act, which requires such settlements to be filed with district courts, would also be impacted by the Supreme Court’s analysis, unless the settlement itself reflects on its scope and interpretation.
• There are also implications for antitrust class action settlements that include injunctive relief and how broadly the injunctive relief extends.