|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.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...