Apple cites U.S. Supreme Court’s birthright ruling in fight over Epic Games injunction

U.S. Supreme Court
Apple is banking on a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limits federal judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions to support its appeal in a lawsuit demanding changes to its profitable App Store. In a court filing, opened in a new tab on Tuesday, Apple informed the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the Supreme Court’s June decision on birthright citizenship strengthens its position in a significant dispute with “Fortnite” creator Epic Games.
In June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to limit federal judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, stemming from a case involving President Trump’s executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship. The decision, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not address the President’s order itself, but restricted injunctions to apply only to plaintiffs with standing, allowing the order to proceed in some areas while legal challenges continue. The ruling delays full implementation for 30 days and leaves room for further litigation, including potential class-action lawsuits.
Mike Scarcella for Reuters:
‎

Apple in its appeal is challenging a U.S. district judge’s order in April that said the company must open its App Store to more competition, allowing all developers — not just Epic — more freedom to steer consumers to alternative payment options outside of an app.
The appeal also challenges the judge’s finding that Apple was in contempt for violating a prior injunction in the same case.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in 2021 said Apple must allow developers to more easily steer consumers to potentially cheaper non-Apple payment options. Apple defied that court order to maintain a revenue stream worth billions of dollars, Gonzalez Rogers ruled in April. Apple has denied any wrongdoing, and defended its compliance with the court’s orders.
Apple told the 9th Circuit that, after the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision, judges no longer have freestanding authority to issue universal injunctions. Apple also noted that Epic pursued its lawsuit on its own, not as a class action on behalf of a larger group.

‎
MacDailyNews Take: As we wrote back in May:
It’s too bad Gonzalez Rogers expected Apple to provide a service that she ordered for free, because it makes no sense for Apple to do such a thing. Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to allow developers to advertise lower prices elsewhere within Apple’s App Store. It is Apple’s App Store. Despite what Epic Games wishes and misrepresents, the App Store is not a public utility. Apple built it. Apple maintains it. Apple owns it, not Epic Games or some ditzy U.S. District Judge. Advertising within Apple’s App Store has value, a fee for which its owner has every right to charge, regardless of whatever the blank-eyed Gonzalez Rogers, bless her heart, expected.
In communist China, the CCP can set prices for Chinese companies. You’re in the wrong country, Yvonne.
Apple should appeal this rolling travesty all the way to the United States Supreme Court, if need be.
Rodgers says that Apple will no longer be allowed to prohibit developers from providing links or other communications that direct users away from Apple in-app purchasing.
You know, because Best Buy and Target are forced by a judge’s injunction to place signs next to each product that advertise lower prices for the same items at Walmart.
Oh, wait, they aren’t forced to do that by some ditzy judge. Because it’s ludicrous, illogical, and just plan wrong.
Apple should appeal Roger’s injunction and/or if developers like Epic Games want to advertise lower prices using Apple’s App Store, Apple should simply charge an in-store advertising fee. We suggest it be 15% for developers making under $1 million per year and 30% for those making $1 million or more annually.