Which case United States v. Wong Kim Ark or  Schmerber v. California was decided first ?
a896847f2216e459692ee0fec08235e7
United States v. Wong Kim Ark United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
aa125c2e9f07a25705d1db763835c702
Schmerber v. California Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body. Until "Schmerber", the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects. Likewise, the Court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution.
128a24212ae84e93f581621414db0d0b
Smith v. California Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959), was a U.S. Supreme Court case upholding the freedom of the press. The decision deemed unconstitutional a city ordinance that made one in possession of obscene books criminally liable because it did not require proof that one had knowledge of the book’s content, and thus violated the freedom of the press guaranteed in the First Amendment. "Smith v. California" continued the Supreme Court precedent of ruling that questions of freedom of expression were protected by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action. It also established that in order for one to be criminally liable for possession of obscene material, there must be proof of one’s knowledge of the material.
45a16cb930509afaf7bd68a479debd8a
Rochin v. California Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that added behavior that "shocks the conscience" into tests of what violates due process. This balancing test is often criticized as having subsequently been used in a particularly subjective manner.
43eadd8d2fe0b9b897f797a307346658
Scott v. Illinois Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. In "Scott", the Court decided whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required Illinois to provide Scott with trial counsel.
50cb9d4dabcf288de5db6de0af586f48
Shaw v. United States Shaw v. United States, 580 U.S. ___ (2016) , was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified the application of the federal bank fraud statute to cases where a defendant intends to only defraud a customer of the bank, rather than the bank itself.
b2918114985f0bc93b965f32f43c41bd
Bob Jones University v. Simon Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725 (1974) , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Bob Jones University, which had its 501(c)(3) status revoked by the Internal Revenue Service for practicing "racially discriminatory admissions policies" towards African-Americans, could not sue for an injunction to prevent losing its tax-exempt status. The question of Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status was ultimately resolved in "Bob Jones University v. United States", 461 U.S. 574 (1983) , in which the court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect discriminatory organizations from losing tax-exempt status.
3b9f9ce73766d3360e29203a763a5cd8
Marshall v. Marshall Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006) is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a federal district court had equal or concurrent jurisdiction with state probate (Will) courts over tort claims under state common law. The case drew an unusual amount of interest because the petitioner was Playboy Playmate and celebrity Anna Nicole Smith (whose legal name was Vickie Lynn Marshall). Smith won the case, but unsolved issues regarding her inheritance eventually led to another Supreme Court case, "Stern v. Marshall". She died long before that case was decided.
848a88abbbc26554af425654b538e5e9
Younger v. Harris Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that United States federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim.
9e0644d86104fcfc0f8f49937c86bbe8
Flickinger v Crown Colony of Hong Kong Flickinger v Crown Colony of Hong Kong was the first Bill of Rights case to reach the Court of Appeal. It concerned whether detained persons should be granted the right to appeal unsuccessful applications for Habeas corpus and how statutes should be interpreted in light of the Bill of Rights Act 1990
4e5db5b79c8f16b0cb0370b44049b08e
Edward C. Lawson Edward C. Lawson was an African American civil rights activist, who was the plaintiff in the case of "Kolender v. Lawson", 461 U.S. 352 (1983) , in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a California statute
cb69f83ac483851d7537533c0dd9d61b
American Communications Ass'n v. Douds American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (1950) , is a 5-to-1 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Taft–Hartley Act's imposition of an anti-communist oath on labor union leaders does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, is not an "ex post facto" law or bill of attainder in violation of of the United States Constitution, and is not a "test oath" in violation of Article Six of the Constitution.
84afa56e7b57b74821080ead3ca6006e
Debra Wong Yang Debra Wong Yang (; pinyin: Yáng Huáng Jīnyù) was the United States Attorney for the Central District of California. She was appointed in May 2002 by President George W. Bush, who made her the first Asian American woman to serve as a United States Attorney. In 2009, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa nominated Yang to a vacancy on the Los Angeles Police Commission. In 2016, she was listed as the potential choice for SEC Chief in Donald Trump's cabinet.
44b43326b0af45ecbe37e558ddc213e3
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000) was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution did not extend to the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment where the discrimination complained of was rationally based on age.
f68f9945a61c7252e7b738e969e48976
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988) , was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established (by policy or practice) as forums for student expression.
4f158ff50cf8e05cbfa7a8bb46031b95
Byram v. United States Byram v. United States, 705 F.2d 1418 (5th Cir. 1983) is a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that helps determine when a sale of land will result in a capital gain for purpose of the U.S. Federal income tax.
ca5d993ee99ad1ec17b21cc3323192f5
United States v. Wurzbach United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396 (1930), is a unanimous ruling by the US Supreme Court that the term "political purpose," as used in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, was not impermissibly vague. The Supreme Court reversed the district court, which had quashed an indictment under the Act.
576588993279bfd8779e772708a396a0
Farrington v. Tokushige Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284 (1927) , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously struck down the Territory of Hawaii's law, making it illegal for schools to teach foreign languages without a permit, as it violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.
60aaa1712e7c8590945cf3bc72c2cc2f
DeFunis v. Odegaard DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case decided on April 23, 1974, that was determined to be moot, and therefore could not go forward. American student Marco DeFunis, who had been denied admission to the University of Washington School of Law in the state of Washington, and then had been provisionally admitted during the pendency of the case, was slated to graduate within a few months at the time the decision was rendered.
21a81fac2876a7e4058fa651bd1ec0ac
California v. Acevedo California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, which interpreted the "Carroll" doctrine to provide one rule to govern all automobile searches. The Court stated, "The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained." The decision also overruled the distinctions in "United States v. Chadwick" (1977) and "Arkansas v. Sanders" (1979) which had previously held that, if probable cause existed to search an automobile, the police may perform a warrantless search of the automobile and the containers within it, but if the police only had probable cause to search a container in the automobile, the police first had to obtain a warrant before searching the container.
744bcd88c9b5001836ce481f2befa182
One, Inc. v. Olesen One, Inc. v. Olesen 355 U.S. 371 (January 13, 1958) is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision for LGBT rights in the United States. It was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to deal with homosexuality and the first to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality.
c4122f2902c9e0ac92f9e0bb74b9734e
Edith Windsor Edith "Edie" Windsor (née Schlain; June 20, 1929 – September 12, 2017) was an American LGBT rights activist and a technology manager at IBM. She was the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the United States case "United States v. Windsor", which successfully overturned Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act and was considered a landmark legal victory for the same-sex marriage movement in the United States.