In a flurry of action, the Supreme Court on Monday issued two opinions, granted certiorari in two cases, called for the views of the Solicitor General in two others, and denied a host of cert petitions, including that from former Panama dictator Manuel Noriega.

The Court announced decisions in Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, No. 08-969 and Briscoe v. Virginia, No. 07-11191. In Hemi, an unusual combination of Justices (Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg and Alito) held that since the City of New York could not establish lost tax revenue caused by a RICO violation, the City could not therefore state a valid RICO claim. The opinion can be viewed here.

The Court in Briscoe issued a GVR order (i.e., granting the certiorari petition, vacating the lower court’s order, and remanding the case in light of an intervening development) after conducting oral argument. The GVR order most likely represents what was an insufficient number of votes for overruling the Court’s controversial opinion last June in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. __ (2009). Justice Scalia lamented during oral arguments that the only reason certiorari had been granted in Briscoe was to reconsider the Melendez-Diaz ruling. That ruling now appears safe. The petitioner’s merits briefs (printed by Cockle) can be viewed here and here. The Court’s opinion can be viewed here.

In Chase Bank USA v. McCoy, No. 09-329 and Providence Hospital v. Moses, No. 09-438, the Court called for the views of the Solicitor General.

The Court also granted certiorari and consolidated for oral argument the petitions in Abbott v. United States, No. 09-479 and Gould v. United States, No. 09-7073. Those cases involve the federal criminal statute making it a crime to use, carry or possess a firearm during a drug trafficking or violent crime.

The Court declined review on several cases relisted from previous conferences. Among those petitions was the request for review filed by Manuel Noriega. Noriega v. Pastrana, No. 09-35. Notably, the denial of the Noriega petition drew a dissent from Justices Thomas and Scalia, arguing that the case presented issues of significant importance requiring the Court’s “guidance” in assisting the political branches to “discharge their responsibilities over detainee cases…” The dissent can be viewed here.