|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-204||9th Cir.||Nov 26, 2018||May 13, 2019||5-4||Kavanaugh||OT 2018|
Holding: Respondents, who purchased apps for their iPhones though Apple’s App Store, were direct purchasers from Apple under Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois and may sue Apple for allegedly monopolizing the retail market for the sale of iPhone apps.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh on May 13, 2019. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 02 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 6, 2017)|
|Sep 06 2017||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Washington Legal Foundation.|
|Sep 06 2017||Brief of respondents Robert Pepper, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Sep 06 2017||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by ACT The App Association.|
|Sep 15 2017||Objection to motions of the App Association and the Washington Legal Foundation to fie briefs in support of petitioner from respondents Robert Pepper, et al. filed.|
|Sep 20 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/6/2017.|
|Sep 20 2017||Reply of petitioner Apple Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 10 2017||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|May 08 2018||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|May 22 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/7/2018.|
|Jun 11 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/14/2018.|
|Jun 18 2018||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by ACT The App Association GRANTED.|
|Jun 18 2018||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Washington Legal Foundation GRANTED.|
|Jun 18 2018||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jun 25 2018||Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Jul 03 2018||Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 10, 2018. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 24, 2018.|
|Aug 07 2018||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Robert Pepper, et al.|
|Aug 10 2018||Brief of petitioner Apple Inc. filed.|
|Aug 10 2018||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs received.)|
|Aug 16 2018||Brief amicus curiae of R Street Institute filed.|
|Aug 17 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.|
|Aug 17 2018||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Aug 17 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Computer & Communications Industry Association filed.|
|Aug 17 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Aug 17 2018||Brief amicus curiae of BSA | The Software Alliance filed.|
|Aug 17 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Verizon Communications Inc. in support of neither party filed.|
|Aug 17 2018||Brief amicus curiae of ACT The App Association filed.|
|Sep 10 2018||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Sep 24 2018||Brief of respondents Robert Pepper, et al. filed.|
|Sep 28 2018||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Apple Inc..|
|Oct 01 2018||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Oct 01 2018||Brief amici curiae of Antitrust Scholars filed.|
|Oct 01 2018||Brief amici curiae of Texas, Iowa, and 29 Other States filed.|
|Oct 01 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Open Markets Institute filed.|
|Oct 01 2018||Brief amicus curiae of American Antitrust Institute filed.|
|Oct 09 2018||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, November 26, 2018|
|Oct 11 2018||Application (18A399) to extend the time to file a reply brief from October 24, 2018 to October 29, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Oct 15 2018||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Oct 17 2018||Application (18A399) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file petitioner's reply brief on the merits to and including October 29, 2018.|
|Oct 19 2018||CIRCULATED|
|Oct 29 2018||Reply of petitioner Apple Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 26 2018||Argued. For petitioner: Daniel M. Wall, San Francisco, Cal.; and Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondents: David C. Frederick, Washington, D. C.|
|May 13 2019||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kavanaugh, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined.|
|Jun 17 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.