Question: Which court case took place first, Graham v. Florida or United States v. Windsor?
Context: United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the three prong test for the issuance of a subpoena in "United States v. Nixon" does not apply to subpoenas issued by a grand jury.  The Court concluded by stating that when a grand jury subpoena is challenged on relevancy grounds, the motion to quash must be denied “unless the district court determines that there is no reasonable possibility that the materials sought will produce information relevant to the grand jury's investigation.” Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses.  The court decided that "Roper v. Simmons" (2005), which had abolished the death penalty for juvenile offenders as unconstitutional, should apply also to sentences of life without the possibility of parole. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No.  12-307 ), is a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.  In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." Prior to the landmark ruling "United States v. Windsor", the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage was upheld by the Eighth Circuit in "Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning".  After the "Windsor" ruling, many same-sex marriage bans were struck down by lower courts.  The Tenth, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth circuits all ruled that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.  The cases that made it to these circuit courts originated in district courts which for the most part also struck down same-sex marriage bans.  When a circuit court struck down a state's same-sex marriage ban, it did not directly strike down same-sex marriage bans in other states within the circuit.  However, it paved the way for same-sex marriage bans to be struck down in the entire circuit due to the precedent it set for district courts within the circuit to follow.  In some states, same-sex marriage was already legal before a federal circuit court ruled on the matter.  The Sixth Circuit ruled that same-sex marriage bans were not unconstitutional and reversed the district court rulings that struck down same-sex marriage bans.  Since this was the only circuit court to rule this way post-"Windsor", this created a circuit split which ultimately led to the Supreme Court of the United States deciding to resolve the issue once and for all.  They ruled that same-sex marriage bans violate the constitution in the landmark ruling "Obergefell v. Hodges" which was the consolidated case that covered each state in the Sixth Circuit.  Some circuit courts have not ruled on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans at all.  Many circuit courts had pending same-sex marriage cases, but decided to hold off on litigation until the Supreme Court ruled on the matter. United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated a federal law against flag desecration as violating of free speech under the First Amendment.  It was argued together with the case "United States v. Haggerty".  It built on the opinion handed down in the Court's decision the prior year in "Texas v. Johnson" (1989), which invalidated on First Amendment grounds a Texas state statute banning flag-burning. United States v. Graham, 846 F. Supp.  2d 384 (D. Md. 2012), was a Maryland District Court case in which the Court held that historical cell site location data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.  Reacting to precedent established by the recent Supreme Court case "United States v. Jones" in conjunction with the application of the third party doctrine, Judge Richard D. Bennett, found that "information voluntarily disclosed to a third party ceases to enjoy Fourth Amendment protection" because that information no longer belongs to the consumer, but rather to the telecommunications company that handles the transmissions records.  The historical cell site location data is then not subject to the privacy protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment standard of probable cause, but rather to the Stored Communications Act, which governs the voluntary or compelled disclosure of stored electronic communications records. The T-3 case, formally United States v Escamilla, 467 F.2d 341 (1972), was a series of legal disputes following a death on the Arctic ice island T-3 in July 1970.  In a dispute over some raisin wine, one member of the crew of a research station was alleged to have shot and killed another.  Both men were Americans, but the case took place outside American territorial waters, and the case raised a number of questions on the jurisdiction of criminal law in special circumstances.  After a trial, appeal, and retrial, the defendant was acquitted, but the matter of jurisdiction was not settled until American law was revised in 1984. United States v. Binion, 132 F. App'x 89 (8th Cir.  2005), is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit applied two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions ("United States v. Booker", 543 U.S. 220 (2005) and "United States v. Fanfan", 543 U.S. 220 (2005) in reviewing the sentencing decision by the trial court and upheld by the Federal District Court for the Eastern District. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders.  The ruling applied even to those persons who had committed murder as a juvenile, extending beyond the "Graham v. Florida" (2010) case, which had ruled juvenile life without parole sentences unconstitutional for crimes "excluding murder". Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that state restrictions on welfare benefits for legal aliens but not for citizens violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Court invalidated an Arizona law that required citizenship or 15 years of residence to receive welfare benefits.  The 9-0 decision was written by Harry A. Blackmun.
Answer: Graham v. Florida