Head-to-head
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, et al., Petitioners v. Mosaic Health, Inc., et al. vs. Hastings College Conservation Committee, et al., Petitioners v. California, et al. vs. Apple Inc., Petitioner v. Epic Games, Inc.
Business and Regulation cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
The matchup
Docket 25-1070AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, et al., Petitioners v. Mosaic Health, Inc., et al.Before argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1231Hastings College Conservation Committee, et al., Petitioners v. California, et al.Before argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1311Apple Inc., Petitioner v. Epic Games, Inc.Before argumentOctober Term 2025
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Business and Regulation
- Why compared
- Reviewed Business and Regulation tags connect these current-term public cases.
Questions presented
- AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, et al., Petitioners v. Mosaic Health, Inc., et al.
- 1. Whether Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), which bars antitrust claims by indirect purchasers and sellers, applies to a claim of “lost profit” damages based on indirect purchases or sales that were not made due to the alleged conspiracy? 2. Whether the allegation that businesses had an “opportunity to conspire,” such as through joint lobbying and participation in a trade association, plausibly suggests an antitrust conspiracy?
- Hastings College Conservation Committee, et al., Petitioners v. California, et al.
- 1. Whether a state law that requires a specified name and governance structure for a public college and is enacted in exchange for payment of a specified sum creates binding contractual obligations on the part of that state subject to the protections of the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 2. Whether state legislation posthumously declaring an individual as having engaged in criminal conduct and, on that basis, stripping benefits secured by state law for that individual and his descendants violates the Bill of Attainder Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Apple Inc., Petitioner v. Epic Games, Inc.
- 1. Whether a court may hold a party in civil contempt based on a violation of an injunction's "spirit" where the injunction is silent as to the conduct upon which contempt is based, as the Ninth Circuit holds; or, instead, whether a court must ground a finding of civil contempt on the violation of an order that clearly and unambiguously proscribes the precise conduct at issue, as other circuits hold. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit has properly created an "antitrust" or "competition" exception to Trump v. CASA, Inc ., 606 U.S. 831 (2025), and the longstanding equitable principles on which CASA rests, or otherwise disregarded CASA 's limits.
Go deeper
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.