Stephen P. Halbrook is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and an author and lawyer known for his litigation on behalf of the National Rifle Association.
 He has written extensively about the original meanings of the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment (the latter as applied to Second Amendment rights).
 He has argued and won three cases before the US Supreme Court: "Printz v. United States", "United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company", and "Castillo v. United States".
 He has also written briefs in many other cases, including the Supreme Court cases "Small v. United States" (pertaining to the Gun Control Act of 1968) and "McDonald v. Chicago".
 In "District of Columbia v. Heller", he wrote a brief on behalf of the majority of both houses of Congress.
 More broadly, his decades of research on the Second Amendment contributed to the intellectual foundation of the "Heller" decision.
 He has written many books and articles on the topic of gun control, some of which have been cited in Supreme Court opinions ("Heller", "McDonald", "Printz v. United States").
 He has testified before congress on multiple occasions.
 Halbrook’s most important scholarly contribution, however, was the book "That Every Man Be Armed", originally published in 1986.
 The book was the most thorough analysis of the legal history and original intent of the Second Amendment.
The Institutes of the Lawes of England are a series of legal treatises written by Sir Edward Coke.
 They were first published, in stages, between 1628 and 1644.
 Widely recognized as a foundational document of the common law, they have been cited in over 70 cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, including several landmark cases. For example, in "Roe v. Wade" (1973), Coke's "Institutes" are cited as evidence that under old English common law, an abortion performed before quickening was not an indictable offence.
 In the much earlier case of "United States v. E. C. Knight Co." (1895), Coke's "Institutes" are quoted at some length for their definition of monopolies.
 The "Institutes's" various reprinted editions well into the 19th century is a clear indication of the long lasting value placed on this work throughout especially the 18th century in Britain and Europe.
 It has also been associated through the years with high literary connections.
 For example, David Hume in 1764 requested it from the bookseller Andrew Millar in a cheap format for a French friend.
Constitutional colorblindness is an aspect of United States Supreme Court case evaluation that began with Justice Harlan's dissent in "Plessy v. Ferguson "in 1896.
 Prior to this (and for a good while afterwards), the Supreme Court considered color as a determining factor in many landmark cases.
 Constitutional colorblindness holds that skin color or race is virtually never a legitimate ground for legal or political distinctions, and thus, any law that is "color conscious" is presumptively unconstitutional regardless of whether its intent is to subordinate a group, or remedy discrimination.
 The concept, therefore, has been brought to bear both against vestiges of Jim Crow oppression, as well as remedial efforts aimed at overcoming such discrimination, such as affirmative action.
Canterbury v. Spence (464 F.2d.
 772, 782 D.C. Cir.
 1972) was a landmark federal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that significantly reshaped malpractice law in the United States.
 It established the idea of "informed consent" to medical procedures.
Pavani Parameswara Rao (P.P. Rao) son of late Shri.
 Seshaiah was a Senior Advocate practising in the Supreme Court of India.
 Widely considered a doyen of Constitutional Law, he had argued a number of landmark cases before the Supreme Court.
Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) , is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.
 In this case, the Court overruled its decision in "Aguilar v. Felton" (1985), now finding that it was not a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for a state-sponsored education initiative to allow public school teachers to instruct at religious schools, so long as the material was secular and neutral in nature and no "excessive entanglement" between government and religion was apparent.
 This case is noteworthy in a broader sense as a sign of evolving judicial standards surrounding the First Amendment, and the changes that have occurred in modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence.
V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. ___ (2016) , is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the adoption rights of same-sex couples.
 In 2007, a Georgia Superior Court granted adoption rights to V.L., the partner of E.L., the woman who gave birth to their three children.
 However, after moving back to Alabama, the couple split up.
 E.L. tried to block V.L. from seeing the children, but V.L. filed a lawsuit seeking visitation and other parental rights.
 On September 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the state did not have to recognize the adoption judgment, saying that the Georgia court misapplied its own state law.
 The court voided the recognition of the adoption judgment in Alabama.
 V.L. petitioned the United States Supreme Court to stay the ruling during her appeal and allow her to see her children.
 On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending their action on a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by V.L. On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court by per curiam summary disposition.
During the tenure of Morrison Waite as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (March 4, 1874 through March 23, 1888), the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented volume and frequency of criminal cases.
 In just fourteen years, the Court heard 106 criminal cases, almost as many cases as the Supreme Court had heard in the period from its creation to the appointment of Waite as Chief Justice.
 Notable cases include "United States v. Cruikshank" (1875), "United States v. Reese" (1875), "Reynolds v. United States" (1878), "Wilkerson v. Utah" (1879), the "Trade-Mark Cases" (1879), "Strauder v. West Virginia" (1880), "Pace v. Alabama" (1883), "United States v. Harris" (1883), "Ex parte Crow Dog" (1883), "Hurtado v. California" (1884), "Clawson v. United States" (1885), "Yick Wo v. Hopkins" (1886), "United States v. Kagama" (1886), "Ker v. Illinois" (1886), and "Mugler v. Kansas" (1887).
Public Citizen Litigation Group is a public interest law firm in the United States known for its Supreme Court and appellate practice.
 The group is the litigating arm of the non-profit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen.
 Its attorneys work on cases involving health and safety regulation, consumer rights, separation of powers, access to the courts, class actions, open government, and the First Amendment.
 Despite the group's small size, its staff attorneys have argued more than 56 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, including landmark cases on separation of powers, commercial speech, and consumer rights, and have gone on to prominent positions in the legal academy and the federal government.
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) was a United States Supreme Court decision regarding school prayer.
 It was the first major school prayer case decided by the Rehnquist Court.
 It ruled that schools may not sponsor clerics to conduct even non-denominational prayer.
 The Court followed a broad interpretation of the Establishment Clause that had been standard for decades at the nation's highest court, a reaffirmation of the principles of such landmark cases as "Engel v. Vitale", 370 U.S. 421 (1962) and "Abington v. Schempp", 374 U.S. 203 (1963) .

Question: Which of the following landmark cases was tried in the Supreme Court: Agostini v. Felton or Canterbury v. Spence?
Answer: Agostini v. Felton