Supreme Court

  • |

    The Rule That Won’t Stay Put

    ByHarlan Quill

    Harlan Quill says judicial estoppel is the sort of rule built by people who are tired of hearing the same witness change coats in the hallway. It exists to stop legal flip-flops, not to audition for a campaign slogan, yet here it is being offered up like the nation must decide whether to keep the screws tight or loosen them for comfort.

    The comedy is in the packaging. A doctrine with a simple job gets recast as a civic question, with “reexamine” doing the usual work of making a demolition look like housekeeping. That is how institutions talk when they want to sound democratic while quietly shopping for a softer lock.

  • |

    Apple’s Supreme Court Gambit: Still Lagging in the App Store Fee Race

    ByLee Keybum

    Apple just sent a missive to the U.S. Supreme Court—not a new software update, but a formal petition. They’re seeking a review of contempt rulings over App Store policies linked to their legendary clash with Epic Games. Apple claims it’s been slammed for violating the ‘spirit’ rather than the letter of the law—because you’d think fees on link clicks only exist in the metaverse. And, surprise, they argue the injunction unfairly targets all developers, not just their frenemies at Epic.

    The timeline here is a proper binge-watch: it all kicked off with a 2021 ruling that had Apple calculating 12-27% fees faster than you can misplace a lightning cable. By April 2025, contempt was thrown into the mix, leading to the Ninth Circuit saying no to Apple’s ‘can we pause’ playlist earlier this month. Apple’s World Tour of Courtroom Dramas continues with its May 21 Supreme pitch, aiming to ballpark fees back to home plate.

    Apple’s legal playbook leans on parsing the letter against the spirit of court orders. Apparently, the ‘spirit’ didn’t explicitly say “thou shalt not tack on mystery fees.” The injunction twist? Apple argues it should only affect Epic, not the whole developer nation. It’s a riveting episode of ‘Fee or No Fee.’

    For developers hoping to sneak a few savings past the bouncer into users’ hands, this is a waiting game worthy of an app-store approval delay. Users expecting competition to drive prices down might find themselves staring into a paywall that’s suspiciously stubborn. Apple’s determined to keep its fee-control wedge tight—even as court gavel-wielders shake their heads.

    And here’s the kicker—Apple is sliding those fees under your radar like they’re setting up a new Apple Wallet feature. Their stance dances on the legal tightrope, wary of any slip threatening to trigger the push notification of doom.

    Looking ahead to June 25, the Supreme Court conference could determine whether Apple finally gets a ruling set in stone or another round in the courtroom boxing ring. Developers and users might want to keep those popcorn subscriptions handy.

    Sources

  • |

    Court Holds Medicine (and Our Sanity) Hostage—Supreme Court Hits Pause on Abortion-Pill Snafu

    ByMike Rotch

    Folks, buckle up because the Supreme Court has once again chosen to play its favorite game: judicial hot potato. Justice Samuel Alito has hit the snooze button on sense and reason by extending his emergency stay against the Fifth Circuit’s ruling on mifepristone. If you’re keeping score at home, that means telehealth and mail-order access to the abortion pill stay intact until at least this Thursday, May 14, at 5 p.m. ET. It’s just another Tuesday in our democracy, where clarity is a pipe dream.

    Why should you care? Well, if you’re a woman who relies on telehealth for reproductive healthcare, this bureaucratic charade means you’re left holding your breath. The Fifth Circuit’s decision that was supposed to go into effect required in-person dispensing of mifepristone, a much more cumbersome process. This decision affects a majority of medication abortions, so the stakes are sky-high for providers and patients trying to plan for, you know, their lives.

    According to AP News, this hold keeps the current pharmacy and mail-access arrangements in place, which is crucial given that in-person requirements would massively curb access to care, especially in states where clinic availability is sparse. Why make something easy when you can wrap it in red tape and douse it in paperwork perfume?

    The joke, if you dare call it that, is on us. While Justice Alito contemplates from the shadow docket, everyone else is left in the kind of limbo that bureaucrats and goblins might call home. Providers have to play a guessing game about what’s legal and what’s not, with patients caught in the middle like political pawns. Thanks, SCOTUS, my blood pressure just filed its own extension.

    The Guttmacher Institute highlighted the true madness here: this isn’t just about an abortion pill; it’s about whether medical care can be managed like a game of Calvinball. With around-the-clock uncertainty, patients and providers deserve better than being dangled by the whims of temporary rulings. But that would require the courage to issue a clear ruling. And courage, apparently, is out of stock.

    Keep your eyes peeled, folks. By Thursday, the Court might decide to extend the stay again—or even rattle everyone with a decision. Until then, the stay is extended, sanity is on lease, and the only consistent thing here is chaos.

    Sources

End of content

End of content