Good morning, everyone! Welcome to today's live blog.
We are expecting orders from last Friday's conference at 9:30 this morning, followed by one or more opinions in argued cases at 10 am.
As always, we will convey the information to you as we receive it from our reporter, Lyle Denniston, who is at the Court.
Good morning from the Court press room.
The Court could in theory grant additional cases from last week's Conference, but that has generally not been its practice.
There is a supplemental decree in an original action.
One CVSG in Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance.
The Court denied review in the Arizona medical abortion case, Humble v. Planned Parenthood Arizona.
The original case is United States v . California.
The supplemental decree apparently states where the federal/state boundary under the Submerged Lands Act. Lyle reports that it is mainly of value for drilling for minerals underwater.
We won't know for sure about Christeson v. Roper, 14-6873, until the electronic docket is updated later today, but presumably it has been relisted again.
Christeson is a death penalty case in which Tejinder Singh of Goldstein & Russell represents an amicus in the case.
The Gobeille case sent to the Solicitor General for the government's views is about the power of a state to require health care providers and insurers to provide to the state data about claims. The 2d Circuit found a Vermont law preempted by ERISA.
The new order issued in the California state-federal boundary case is simply a refinement of the specific locations of that boundary. The Court first ruled on ownership of the submerged lands and minerals in 1947. Since then, it has put that decision into effect with a series of orders -- called "decrees" -- that provide specific geographic coordinates for where the boundary actually lies. Today's order is simply an updating -- the fifth such refinement since 1947.
This is, by the way, the last day that we expect to get regularly scheduled orders and opinions this year. The next Conference is scheduled for January 9, 2015, and the January sitting starts the following Monday.
One of our terrific readers reports that Justices Scalia and Kagan will not be on the bench today, because they are scheduled to appear at the Ole Miss law school at 10 am.
No word on whether the pair will go hunting together after that.
The fact that Justices Kagan and Scalia aren't on the bench today, by the way, does not necessarily mean that they do not have an opinion. We'll know soon.
We have the first opinion. Dart Cherokee v. Owens. Good call.
The decision of the Tenth Circuit is vacated and remanded. Justice Ginsburg is the author.
A defendant's notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. The notice need not contain evidentiary submissions.
There are two dissents. The vote appears to be five to four.
Scalia dissents, joined by Kennedy and Kagan and in part by Thomas; Thomas filed a separate dissenting opinion.]
Justice Thomas joins all of the Scalia dissent except the last sentence.
The Ginsburg opinion just barely makes it on to page 14.
Second and last opinion is Heien v. NC. So much for my prediction.
The N.C. Supreme Court is affirmed. Opinion is by the Chief Justice.
Outcome is 8-1, with Sotomayor dissenting. There is a concurring opinion by Kagan, joined by Ginsburg.
The Court holds that because the police officer's mistake of law was reasonable, there was reasonable suspicion justifying the stop under the Fourth Amendment.
This was a case in which the police officer pulled someone over for not having one of his brake lights working, when in fact it was enough under North Carolina law that you had at least one working.
The Court had previously ruled in another case that a reasonable mistake of fact would not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Rory Little covered Heien for us, so hopefully we will have a detailed analysis from him soon.
Heien is now posted, as is the supplemental decree in the original action US v. California.
Heien is even shorter than Dart Cherokee. Kagan and Ginsburg concur in full in the judgment, but she indicates that she is writing separately to "elaborate on" the limitations on the inquiry into whether the officer's mistake of law was objectively reasonable.
The Kagan/Ginsburg concurrence is quite short; in her solo dissent, Justice Sotomayor indicates that "the most administrable approach . . . would be to hold that the officer's mistake of law, no matter how reasonable, cannot support the individualized suspicion necessary to justify a seizure under the Fourth Amendment."
Okay, I think that's all for today. Rory Little will have additional coverage of today's decision in Heien, while Ronald Mann will cover the decision in Dart Cherokee. Lyle will have a post soon with more details on today's orders. Thanks for joining us; happy holidays, and we will see you next year!