Breaking News

Today’s orders and opinions

UPDATE, 10:48 a.m.: Below the jump, we have added the full texts of the two opinions released.

To sum up our LiveBlog this morning, the Court has decided two cases: Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York (08-969) is reversed and remanded and Briscoe v. Virginia (07-11191) is vacated and remanded.  The opinions in those cases are linked here and here, and the full texts now appear below the jump.

The Court has also granted cert. in two cases, consolidated for oral argument: Abbott v. United States (09-479) and Gould v. United States (09-7073).  The Solicitor General is invited to give the views of the United States in two more cases, Chase Bank USA v. McCoy (09-329) and Providence Hospital v. Moses (09-438).  The documents in those cases follow the jump.  The full order list is here.

Petitions granted certiorari:

Docket: 09-479; 09-7073
Title: Abbott v. United States; Gould v. United States
Issues: From 09-479: (1) Whether the term “any other provision of law” of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) includes the underlying drug trafficking offense or crime of violence; and (2) if not, whether it includes another offense for possessing the same firearm in the same transaction?

From 09-7073: Does a mandatory minimum sentence provided by 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(I)(A) apply to a count when another count already carries a greater mandatory minimum sentence?

For 09-479:

For 09-7073:

Cases in which the Solicitor General is invited to file a brief expressing the views of the United States:

Docket: 09-329
Title: Chase Bank USA v. McCoy
Issue: When a creditor increases the periodic rate on a credit card account in response to a cardholder default, pursuant to a default rate term that was disclosed in the contract governing the account, does Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.9(c), require the creditor to provide the cardholder with a change-in-terms notice even though the contractual terms governing the account have not changed?

Docket: 09-438
Title: Providence Hospital v. Moses
Issues: (1) Whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act’s requirement that any individual who comes to a hospital’s emergency department with an emergency medical condition be screened and stabilized should be expanded to continue indefinitely, after the individual has been admitted to the hospital; and (2) whether a regulation by the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services clarifying that EMTALA is inapplicable to hospital inpatients, 42 C.F.R. § 489.24(d)(2)(i), is valid and applies retroactively.

Opinion texts:

Opinion in Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, No. 08-969

Opinion in Briscoe v. Virginia, No. 07-11191