Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation and Claims— On February 8, 2018, two putative class action complaints were filed against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and the Company's former Chief Financial Officer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Hessefort v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-00838 and United Union of Roofers v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-00850). The complaints contain similar allegations, claiming that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act due to alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in public statements regarding recognition of revenue. The court subsequently appointed New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff then filed an amended complaint naming the Company's Senior Vice President of Investor Relations as an additional defendant. On June 21, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a further amended complaint naming the Company's former Senior Vice President of International Sales, Corporate Secretary, and Director as an additional defendant. On July 26, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 23, 2020, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint, with leave for lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days. On April 22, 2020, lead plaintiff filed a further amended complaint. On June 15, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the further amended complaint, the hearing for which was calendared for September 23, 2020; however, the Court held a conference on September 15 to discuss how the Court could efficiently address the recent SEC settlement agreement. The parties stipulated to allow plaintiffs to further amend the complaint solely to add allegations relating to the SEC settlement. On October 14, 2020, plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint. On October 28, 2020, defendants filed a supplemental motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs’ claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act were dismissed with prejudice as against the Company’s former head of Investor Relations, Perry Hayes. Plaintiffs’ Section 10(b) claim, but not the Section 20 claim, was likewise dismissed as to Wally Liaw, a founder, former director, and former SVP of International Sales. The Court denied the motions to dismiss the Section 10(b) and Section 20 claims against the Company, Charles Liang, and Howard Hideshima, the Company’s former CFO. Discovery has commenced, and the Court has calendared a hearing on class certification for April 21, 2022. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On October 27, 2020, certain current and former directors and officers of the Company were named as defendants in a putative derivative lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara (the “Court”), captioned Barry v. Liang, et al., 20-CV-372190. The Company was also named as a nominal defendant. The complaint purports to allege claims for breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment arising out of allegations that the Company’s officers and directors caused the Company to issue false and misleading statements about recognition of revenue and the effectiveness of its internal controls, failed to adopt and implement effective internal controls, and failed to timely file various reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Defendants filed demurrers, which were set for hearing on August 4, 2021, but which were continued to September 15, 2021. Following this continuance, on July 21, 2021, Plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in lieu of responding to the demurrer. The amended complaint added no new claims; primarily, the amendment added allegations describing the March 29, 2021 motion to dismiss decision in the Hessefort class action. Defendants demurred to the amended complaint on August 24, 2021, and the Court has continued the hearing to March 23, 2022. The case is otherwise currently stayed. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On May 5, 2021, certain current and former directors and officers of the Company were named as defendants in a putative derivative lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Stein v. Liang, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-03357-KAW (the “Stein Derivative Action”). The Company was also named as a nominal defendant. The complaint purports to allege claims for breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and contribution for violations of federal securities laws arising out of allegations that the Company’s officers and directors caused the Company to issue false and misleading statements about recognition of revenue and the effectiveness of its internal controls, failed to adopt and implement effective internal controls, and failed to timely file various reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other equitable relief. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on August 6, 2021. Rather than oppose defendants’ motions, plaintiff informed defendants that plaintiff was prepared to dismiss his action with prejudice. On September 29, 2021, the parties submitted a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice as to the named plaintiff to the Court for its approval. On December 16, 2021, the Court issued an order for the parties to submit within 30 days a plan of notice of dismissal for the Court’s approval. The Company provided notice as required by the Court on December 21, 2021. The Court order notes that, if no shareholder seeks to intervene during the 45-day notice period ending on February 4, 2022, plaintiff may file an administrative motion requesting that the Court dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. SEC Matter— The Company cooperated with the SEC in its investigation of marketing expenses that contained certain irregularities discovered by Company management, which irregularities were disclosed on August 31, 2015, and the Company cooperated with the SEC in its further investigation of the matters underlying the Company’s inability to timely file its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 and concerning the publication of a false and widely discredited news article in October 2018 concerning the Company’s products. On August 25, 2020, to fully resolve all matters under investigation, the Company consented to entry of an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order (“Order”), as announced by the SEC. The Company admitted the SEC’s jurisdiction over the Company and the subject matter of the proceedings, but otherwise neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s findings, as described in the Order. The Company agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act and Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B), of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13 thereunder. The Company agreed and paid a civil money penalty of $17,500,000 during the three months ended September 30, 2020, which was recorded to general and administrative expense in the Company's condensed consolidated statement of operations in the first quarter of fiscal 2021. In addition, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer concluded a settlement with the SEC on August 25, 2020, as announced by the SEC. The Company’s Chief Executive Officer paid the Company the sum of $2,122,000 as reimbursement of profits from certain stock sales during the relevant period, pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The settlement amount was paid during the first quarter of fiscal 2021 and the Company recorded the payment as a credit to general and administrative expense in the first quarter of fiscal 2021. Other legal proceedings and indemnifications From time to time, the Company has been involved in various legal proceedings arising from the normal course of business activities. The resolution of any such matters have not had a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity as of December 31, 2021 and any prior periods. The Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its current and former directors and executive officers. Under these agreements, the Company has agreed to indemnify such individuals to the fullest extent permitted by law against liabilities that arise by reason of their status as directors or officers and to advance expenses incurred by such individuals in connection with related legal proceedings. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount of payments the Company could be required to make under these agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each claim. However, the Company maintains directors and officers liability insurance coverage to reduce its exposure to such obligations. Purchase Commitments— The Company has agreements to purchase inventory and non-inventory items primarily through the next 12 months. As of December 31, 2021, these remaining noncancelable commitments were $816.0 million, including $100.3 million for related parties. Lease Commitments - See Note 7, "Leases," for a discussion of the Company's operating lease and financing lease commitments.