Apple Inc. v. Pepper

Editor's Note :

Apple Inc. v. Pepper

Opinion analysis: Court gives broad meaning to “confidential” in FOIA exemption for commercial and financial information – Mark Fenster

Opinion analysis: Punitive damages not available under general maritime law in personal-injury unseaworthiness action – Joel Goldstein

Opinion analysis: Long-time prohibition on registration of scandalous and immoral trademarks is struck down – Megan Carpenter

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

June 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Merits Docket OT18 (June 24, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

June 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of June 20, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
17-204	9th Cir.	Nov 26, 2018 Tr.Aud.	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.

Opinion analysis: Divided court allows antitrust lawsuit against Apple to continue (Amy Howe)
Argument analysis: Justices poised to allow antitrust dispute against Apple over apps to go forward (Amy Howe)
Argument preview: Justices to consider whether antitrust lawsuit by iPhone users can go forward (Amy Howe)
Five new grants, one CVSG, but no Arlene’s Flowers (Amy Howe)
Court issues orders from last week’s conference (Amy Howe)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
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.

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Court gives broad meaning to “confidential” in FOIA exemption for commercial and financial information – Mark Fenster

Opinion analysis: Punitive damages not available under general maritime law in personal-injury unseaworthiness action – Joel Goldstein

Opinion analysis: Long-time prohibition on registration of scandalous and immoral trademarks is struck down – Megan Carpenter
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
On Monday, the Supreme Court released orders from the June 20 conference; the justices granted eight new cases, for a total of five hours of oral argument next term: Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Ovalles v. Barr, Dex Media Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, Maine Community Health Options v. United States, Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States, Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. United States, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. and Banister v. Davis.
Also on Monday, the justices released their opinions in four argued cases: United States v. Davis, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, Iancu v. Brunetti and The Dutra Group v. Batterton.
The Supreme Court will release opinions in one or more argued cases on Wednesday at 10 a.m.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
- Gamble v. United States
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media Where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is “confidential” within the meaning of 5 U. S. C. §552(b)(4), the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 4.
- Iancu v. Brunetti The Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks infringes the First Amendment.
- The Dutra Group v. Batterton A plaintiff may not recover punitive damages on a maritime claim of unseaworthiness.
- United States v. Davis Title 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(B), which provides enhanced penalties for using a firearm during a “crime of violence,” is unconstitutionally vague.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of respondent’s patent over respondent’s objection that it was time-barred; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred when it rejected the longstanding principle that a dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as if a suit had never been brought, splitting the circuits.
- Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
- Kelly v. United States Whether a public official “defraud[s]” the government of its property by advancing a “public policy reason” for an official decision that is not her subjective “real reason” for making the decision.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 69

Cases decided 61

Summary reversals 5

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Merits Docket OT18 (June 24, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court Historical Society

On June 3, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with David Rubenstein for the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual lecture at the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	69
Cases decided	61
Summary reversals	5
Merits cases granted to date	74

3
Orders
Opinions

6
Conference

10
Orders
Opinions

13
Conference

17
Orders
Opinions

20
Conference
Opinions

24
Orders
Opinions