Apple Urges SCOTUS to Grant Cert to Vacate ‘Overbroad’ Anti-Steering Injunction

affirmation of the district court’s injunction barring the company from enforcing its anti-steering rules against U.S. iOS app developers arising from the antitrust litigation against Epic (see 2310030002). In the absence of class certification, a federal court can’t enter an injunction “that extends to nonparties without finding that such relief is necessary to redress any injury to the individual plaintiff,” said Apple’s Dec. 22 reply brief in support of its petition. Both the district court and the 9th Circuit “disregarded this constitutional limitation” on the equitable powers of the judiciary, said Apple’s brief. The government is challenging the injunction in Murthy v. Missouri (docket 23-411) on grounds that it sweeps far beyond what’s necessary to address any cognizable First Amendment harm to the named plaintiffs, it said. Murthy establishes that the question presented by Apple’s petition “warrants review,” said the brief. SCOTUS should grant Apple's petition or, in the alternative, hold the petition in abeyance, pending the court’s disposition of the same issue in Murthy, it said. If SCOTUS vacates the injunction in Murthy on “overbreadth” grounds, then the injunction against Apple’s anti-steering rules “would fail,” it said. Apple shouldn’t be required “to comply with a sweeping, overbroad injunction while Murthy remains pending,” it said.