The Trump administration is backing a key part of Apple’s legal argument in its Supreme Court fight with “Fortnite” maker Epic Games, urging the justices to impose a stricter standard for holding companies in civil contempt when they allegedly violate court orders.
The Justice Department told the Supreme Court that civil contempt should generally be available only when an injunction clearly covers the conduct at issue, a position that could strengthen Apple’s challenge to a contempt ruling stemming from its long-running dispute with Epic. The government stressed, however, that it was supporting neither side in the case and said Apple’s conduct concerning at least one part of the lower court’s order could support a contempt finding.
The case, Apple Inc. v. Epic Games Inc., No. 25-1311, is now before the Supreme Court after the justices agreed in June to hear Apple’s challenge. The court’s docket shows that Apple filed its opening merits brief on September 14, with Epic’s response due in November.
Register for the next Tekedia Mini-MBA.
Register for Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
At the center of the dispute is an injunction issued after Epic sued Apple in 2020, accusing the iPhone maker of unlawfully restricting how developers distribute apps and process payments.
Epic deliberately violated Apple’s App Store rules in 2020 by introducing its own payment system in “Fortnite,” triggering Apple’s removal of the game and the ensuing antitrust litigation. A federal judge subsequently ordered Apple to change aspects of its App Store practices, including rules governing how developers could direct consumers to payment options outside Apple’s system.
Epic later accused Apple of attempting to circumvent that injunction by imposing a 27% commission on certain purchases made outside the App Store.
In April 2025, the lower court held Apple in civil contempt, finding that its actions violated the injunction. Apple has denied that it violated the order and argues that the court effectively punished it for conduct that the injunction did not expressly prohibit.
The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case therefore goes beyond Apple’s particular commission structure. It could clarify how courts across the country should determine when a company has violated an injunction sufficiently clearly to warrant civil contempt.
The Justice Department’s brief focuses on that broader legal question. It cited the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Taggart v. Lorenzen, which said civil contempt is appropriate only when there is “no fair ground of doubt” about whether an order prohibited the conduct in question. The government argues that standard requires courts to focus on the express terms of an injunction rather than imposing contempt based primarily on what a judge believes the order was intended to accomplish.
Apple is making a similar argument in its own Supreme Court filing, describing the Ninth Circuit’s approach as an impermissible “spirit-based” standard. Apple argues that parties need clear notice of what an injunction prohibits and that contempt cannot be imposed simply because conduct appears inconsistent with the broader purpose of an order.
That, analysts believe, could have consequences well beyond the App Store.
Civil injunctions are commonly used to regulate corporate conduct in antitrust, intellectual-property, consumer-protection and other cases. A ruling requiring courts to rely more strictly on the text of an order could make it harder to impose contempt sanctions when a company adopts a new business practice that was not expressly addressed in the original injunction.
For Apple, that question has become relevant because the company’s App Store business has been subjected to regulatory and judicial scrutiny in multiple jurisdictions as governments and courts examine its control over app distribution and payments.
Epic, meanwhile, has continued to argue that Apple’s approach effectively allows the company to evade restrictions by changing the form of conduct rather than its underlying effect. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney said earlier this month that Apple had been “evading court rulings and regulatory decisions for years” and that Epic wanted to bring those practices to an end.
The Supreme Court case also illustrates the unusual alignment between the administration and Apple on a legal principle, even though the Justice Department says it is not endorsing Apple’s broader position in the dispute.
The government explicitly acknowledged that Apple’s conduct relating to at least one portion of the lower court’s order could justify contempt. Its position is therefore not that Apple should automatically prevail, but that the legal test used to determine contempt should be clarified and applied according to the language of the injunction.
That makes the case potentially important for both sides of the dispute. Apple is seeking to overturn the contempt finding, while the Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to establish a clearer boundary around the contempt power.
The court’s docket indicates that the case is moving through the merits stage, with Apple’s opening brief already filed. The Supreme Court has limited its review to the first question presented in Apple’s petition, which concerns the standard for civil contempt.
For the broader technology industry, the outcome could determine how much latitude companies have when operating under injunctions that impose behavioral restrictions but do not spell out every possible future business practice.
That issue is becoming increasingly relevant as technology companies continually redesign products, pricing models, and distribution systems in response to regulation and litigation. A court order written for one version of a business may remain in force while the underlying technology and commercial practices change.
Therefore, the Apple-Epic dispute has evolved from a fight over App Store payments into a case about the limits of judicial enforcement. The Supreme Court is being asked to decide how clearly a company must be warned before a court can punish it for violating an injunction, a question that could shape corporate litigation well beyond Apple’s dispute with Epic.