Justice Elena Kagan, on behalf of the court, declined to pause a ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that deemed Apple in contempt in the Epic lawsuit contesting ​App Store fees. Apple had sought the delay to give it time to file a full ​Supreme Court appeal of the 9th Circuit decision.

Apple and Epic have clashed for years over ⁠the rules governing Apple’s App Store. The contempt ruling and the scope of Apple’s court-ordered obligations are ​the latest issues in the dispute to reach the Supreme Court. Apple has said the 9th Circuit decision would ​affect how millions of app purchases are made.

Epic Games won the contempt order last year as part of litigation it brought in 2020 seeking to loosen Apple’s control over transactions in applications that use the company’s iOS operating system and its restrictions ​on how apps are distributed to consumers.

Apple mostly defeated Epic’s lawsuit, but was required in a 2021 court ​injunction to let developers include links in their apps directing users to non-Apple payment methods.

Apple allowed the links but adopted ‌new restrictions, ⁠including a 27% commission on developers for purchases made on payment systems outside the App Store within seven days of clicking a link. Apple charges developers a 30% commission for purchases within the App Store.

Epic argued that the new 27% commission flouted the earlier injunction. In 2025, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in civil contempt for violating the ​injunction.

The 9th Circuit in ⁠December upheld the judge’s contempt finding but allowed Apple to make new arguments about what commission it should be allowed to charge for digital goods bought in apps ​distributed through the App Store but paid for using third-party payment systems.

Apple has denied ​violating the ⁠judge’s order and has argued that the injunction should not be applied to millions of developers beyond Epic Games.

“Regulators around the world are watching this case to determine what commission rate Apple may charge on covered purchases in huge ⁠markets ​outside the United States,” Apple told the Supreme Court in a filing.

Epic ​has argued that Apple should not be allowed to sidestep the judge’s original injunction, saying this would “give Apple more time to continue unfairly ​profiting at the expense of consumers and app developers.”