The U.S. Supreme Court issued a one-day temporary stay, granting Apple Inc. (AAPL.US) a brief respite in the App Store fee dispute.

On August 12 local time, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan issued an administrative stay, temporarily freezing the proceedings of the long-standing antitrust lawsuit between Apple Inc. (AAPL.US) and Fortnite developer Epic Games at the California district court. This move aims to allow the U.S. Supreme Court more time for deliberation to decide whether to approve Apple Inc.'s request for a long-term stay of the lower court's subsequent proceedings. The temporary stay is only effective for one day, freezing the legal proceedings until 5 PM Washington time on the 13th. Apple Inc. is temporarily relieved from having to submit its App Store fee proposal to the California district court by the originally scheduled deadline of the afternoon of the 12th. Background and Controversy of the Case This years-long antitrust dispute traces back to the lawsuit filed by Epic Games in 2020. At that time, Epic accused Apple Inc. of violating federal antitrust laws with its monopoly behavior on the App Store. The platform generates billions of dollars each year by charging developers a commission on digital sales. Federal District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers initially ruled that the App Store did not violate federal antitrust laws but did indeed violate California law. Accordingly, she issued an injunction in 2021, ordering Apple Inc. to allow developers to direct consumers to cheaper online payment options. This ruling was subsequently upheld by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In response, Apple Inc. permitted developers to direct users to websites for transactions but imposed a new 27% commission on the revenues generated from this. Epic then accused Apple Inc. of circumventing the 2021 injunction with this new fee. Following a series of hearings, Judge Gonzalez Rogers concluded that Apple Inc. had violated her previous ruling and ordered Apple Inc. to cease collecting commissions on purchases made outside its software marketplace. The judge also referred the case to federal prosecutors to investigate whether Apple Inc. was in contempt of court. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Gonzalez Rogers' contempt ruling against Apple Inc. but instructed her to consider that Apple Inc. should receive "appropriate" compensation for developers' use of its intellectual propertynot at the 27% level. The appellate court ordered Judge Gonzalez Rogers to hold further hearings to determine the appropriate rate. Supreme Court Involvement and Apple Inc.'s Emergency Application After the federal appeals court upheld the contempt ruling, Apple Inc. sought a review from the U.S. Supreme Court. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the contempt ruling made by Judge Gonzalez Rogers against Apple Inc. The case is expected to be heard in December, but the specific date has not yet been determined. On Wednesday, Apple Inc. submitted an emergency application to the U.S. Supreme Court. Apple Inc. argued that the litigation at the district court should be paused while the Supreme Court reviews the case, as the justices' final ruling could render subsequent hearings unnecessary. Apple Inc. contended that if the justices found the previous contempt ruling to be flawed, any further hearings regarding its commission rate would be unwarranted. It is noteworthy that Judge Gonzalez Rogers had already denied a similar stay request from Apple Inc. on Tuesday. In her ruling, she stated that the decision by the Supreme Court to hear Apple Inc.'s appeal "does not substantially affect the factual issues that must be resolved to ensure compliance with the injunction."