The US Supreme Court initiated its December sitting by hearing oral arguments in two cases Monday, including an antitrust claim against Apple.

Apple v. Pepper involves third-party app developers’ concerns that Apple takes too large of a cut of the apps’ revenue and does not allow them to place their apps on competing platforms. Some see the issue as Apple taking a monopoly in app distribution, and the Supreme Court is deliberating on whether antitrust laws are appropriate to break Apple’s influence.

“Antitrust normally accounts for economics, rather than forms of contract,” opined Justice Neil Gorusch. “[I]ndirect purchasers may be better suited to enforce the antitrust laws.”

Petitioner’s counsel subsequently argued that Apple is attempting to expand its influence to prevent an antitrust balm. “Consumers cannot buy an app anywhere other than Apple’s 100 percent-owned monopoly App Store.”

Nieves v. Bartlett involves the question of whether probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim. A “retaliatory arrest” is the arrest of an individual because he or she insulted a police officer, and this case examines whether police suspicion of probable cause defeats the civil liberties arguments that can be had against retaliatory arrest.

“There are so many laws that people can break that police officers generally look the other way,” said Justice Elena Kagan, but you’re saying something that the officer doesn’t much like, so he doesn’t look the other way.”

“All arrests involve speech,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “In some form or another, speech is implicated in the incident of arrest.”

“If there was probable cause for the arrest, then there’s no liability for a retaliatory arrest claim,” said petitioner’s counsel.