Question: Board of Education v. Earls and Illinois v. Gates, have a relationship to which mutual country?
Context: The Aguilar–Spinelli test was a judicial guideline set down by the U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating the validity of a search warrant or a warrantless arrest based on information provided by a confidential informant or an anonymous tip.  The Supreme Court abandoned the "Aguilar"–"Spinelli" test in "Illinois v. Gates", 462 U.S. 213 (1983), in favor of a rule that evaluates the reliability of the information under the "totality of the circumstances."  However, Alaska, Massachusetts, New York, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington have retained the "Aguilar–Spinelli" test, based on their own state constitutions. Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940) , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the religious rights of public school students under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The Court ruled that public schools could compel students—in this case, Jehovah's Witnesses—to salute the American Flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance despite the students' religious objections to these practices.  This decision led to increased persecution of Witnesses in the United States.  The Supreme Court overruled this decision a mere three years later, in "West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette", 319 U.S. 624 (1943). Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) , is a Fourth Amendment case.  "Gates" overruled "Aguilar v. Texas", 378 U.S. 108 (1964) and "Spinelli v. United States", 393 U.S. 410 (1969) , thereby replacing the Aguilar–Spinelli test for probable cause with the "totality of the circumstances" test. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when the police obtained voluntary consent from a third party who possessed common authority over the premises sought to be searched.  The ruling of the court established the "co-occupant consent rule," which was later explained by "Illinois v. Rodriguez", 497 U.S. 177 (1990) and distinguished later by "Georgia v. Randolph" (2006), in which the court held that a third party could not consent over the objections of a present co-occupant, and "Fernandez v. California" (2014), where the court held when the objecting co-resident is removed for objectively reasonable purposes (such as lawful arrest), the remaining resident may validly consent to search. Illinois v. Hemi Group, LLC, 622 F.3d 754 (7th Cir.  2010), was a personal jurisdiction case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois' ruling finding personal jurisdiction based on Internet transactions.  In the initial filing, the state of Illinois sued Hemi Group LLC (Hemi) for selling cigarettes to Illinois residents over the Internet in violation of state law and for failing to report those sales in violation of federal law.  Hemi moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the district court found that the Internet transactions provided a basis for Hemi to be sued in Illinois. Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of mandatory drug testing by public schools of students participating in extracurricular activities.  The legal challenge to the practice was brought by two students, Lindsay Earls and Daniel James, and their families against the school board of Tecumseh, Oklahoma, alleging that their policy requiring students to consent to random urinalysis testing for drug use violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees in the workplace.  By a 7–2 margin the justices held that it was not necessary to determine what a nurse at a public hospital had actually said while criticizing a supervisor's staffing practices to coworkers, as long as the hospital had formed a reasonable belief as to the content of her remarks and reasonably believed that they could be disruptive to its operations.  They vacated a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in her favor, and ordered the case remanded to district court to determine instead if the nurse had been fired for the speech or other reasons, per the Court's ruling two decades prior in "Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle". Santa Anna v. Frank, 113 U.S. 339 (1885) , was a case with no special finding of facts, the general finding of the issues for the plaintiff was not open to review by this court.  Town of Martinton, Illinois v. Fairbanks, 112 U.S. 670; S. C. ante, 321.  Questions were discussed by counsel for the defendant as to the legal authority of the town to issue the bonds referred to, fairly arose upon the first count of the declaration.  But their determination could not affect the judgment, for the common counts were sufficient under the statutes of Illinois to support the judgment without reference to any question of the legal authority to issue the bonds described in the first count.  Rev. St. Ill. 1870, c. 110, 58; Bond v. Dustin, 112 U.S. 604; S. C. ante, 296. Board of Education v. Walters was a 1979 Ohio Supreme Court case relating to the funding of primary and secondary schools in Ohio.  The Court ruled that the method of funding public schools at the time was constitutional despite disparities in per-pupil education spending between different districts.  Article VI of the Ohio Constitution states that the state must provide an "adequate system of public schools."  The ruling overturned a previous trial court ruling that the State's school-funding system violated the Constitution of Ohio's requirement of providing a thorough and efficient system of public education.  "Board of Education v. Walters" is one of the cases that played a role leading to "DeRolph v. State of Ohio" in 1997, which found the model of funding for public schools in Ohio to be unconstitutional. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that “[a]lthough an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information and some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant, whose identity was not disclosed, was credible or his information reliable.”  Along with "Spinelli v. United States" (1969), "Aguilar" established the Aguilar–Spinelli test, a judicial guideline for evaluating the validity of a search warrant based on information provided by a confidential informant or an anonymous tip.  The test developed in this case was subsequently rejected and replaced in "Illinois v. Gates", 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
Answer: United States