Question: What U.S. court presided over both the Slaughter-House Cases and Reed v. Reed?
Context: The Chase Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1864 to 1873, when Salmon P. Chase served as the sixth Chief Justice of the United States.  Chase succeeded Roger Taney as Chief Justice after the latter's death.  Chase served as Chief Justice until his death, at which point Morrison Waite was nominated and confirmed as Chase's successor.  The Chase Court presided over the end of the Civil War and much of the Reconstruction Era.  During the Chase Court, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act 1867, giving the court the ability to issue writs of habeas corpus for defendants tried by state courts.  The Chase Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendent for the first time, and its narrow reading of the Amendment would be adopted by subsequent courts. Robert C. Ervin is a North Carolina Superior Court judge who has presided over numerous high-profile cases.  He is the grandson of U.S. Senator Sam J. Ervin, the son of U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Sam J. Ervin III and the brother of state Supreme Court Justice Sam J. Ervin IV. Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971) , was an Equal Protection case in the United States in which the Supreme Court ruled that the administrators of estates cannot be named in a way that discriminates between sexes. The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) , was the first United States Supreme Court interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment which had recently been enacted.  It was a pivotal case in early civil rights law and held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the privileges or immunities of citizenship of the United States, not privileges and immunities of citizenship of a state.  However, federal rights of citizenship were then few, such as the right to travel between states and to use navigable rivers; the amendment did not protect the far broader range of rights covered by state citizenship.  In effect, the amendment was interpreted to convey limited protection pertinent to a small minority of rights. Allen Richard Derr (April 5, 1928 – June 10, 2013) was an American lawyer who won Reed v. Reed, a landmark United States Supreme Court decision issued in 1971 who strengthened anti-discrimination protections for women.  The Supreme Court ruled unanimously for Derr's client, Sally Reed, who sued her estranged husband, Cecil, over who should administer the estate of their late son following his suicide.  Derr argued before the Court that the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution forbid discrimination on the basis of gender.  On November 22, 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor Derr's client, Sally Reed, in a decision written by Chief Justice Warren Burger. Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."  As far back as the circuit court ruling in "Corfield v. Coryell," 6 Fed.  Cas.  546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right.  In "Paul v. Virginia," 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."  However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement.  Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as "Ward v. Maryland," 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the "Slaughter-House Cases," 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and "United States v. Harris," 106 U.S. 629 (1883). Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in the U.S. state of Indiana since October 6, 2014.  The state had previously restricted marriage to male-female couples by statute in 1986.  By legislation passed in 1997, it denied recognition to same-sex relationships established in other jurisdictions.  A lawsuit challenging the state's refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, "Baskin v. Bogan", won a favorable ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on June 25, 2014.  Until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted an emergency stay of the district court's ruling on June 27, most Indiana counties issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling in "Baskin" on September 4.  A ruling in "Bowling v. Pence" stated that the state must recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state and the decision was stayed until the Circuit ruled on the merits in similar cases.  It also stated that the ruling would remain stayed if the circuit court stayed its decision in the related cases. The Vinson Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1946 to 1953, when Fred Vinson served as Chief Justice of the United States.  Vinson succeeded Harlan F. Stone as Chief Justice after the latter's death, and Vinson served as Chief Justice until his death, at which point Earl Warren was nominated and confirmed as Stone's replacement.  The court presided over the country during the start of the Cold War and the Korean War.  The court's decisions reflected the continuing ideological battle between the judicial restraint of Justice Felix Frankfurter and the civil rights activism of Justices William O. Douglas and Hugo Black.  Frankfurter's more conservative views prevailed during the Vinson Court, but many of the dissents written during the Vinson Court would lay the groundwork for the major rulings during the succeeding Warren Court. Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology was a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primarily concerned with the enforceability of box-top licenses and end user license agreements (EULA) and their place in U.S. contract law.  During the relevant period, Step-Saver Data Systems was a value-added reseller, combining hardware and software from different vendors to offer a fully functioning computer system to various end users.  Step-Saver's products included software produced by Software Link, Inc (TSL), computer terminals produced by Wyse Technology, and main computers produced by IBM.  The fundamental question raised in this case was whether the shrinkwrap licenses accompanying TSL's software were legally binding, given that different terms were negotiated over the phone with Step-Saver prior to receiving physical copies of the software.  The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the court ruled that the shrinkwrap licenses were legally binding.  However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit subsequently reversed this decision, ruling that the shrinkwrap licenses were not legally binding. Tuaua v. United States is a court case, originally filed in 2012, in which a group of American Samoans sued the State Department and the Obama administration.  They sued to force the government to recognize American Samoans' birthright citizenship, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that anyone born in the United States is automatically granted citizenship.  The case originated as a complaint filed in 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, by American Samoan and U.S. national Leneuoti Tuaua, who was prohibited from becoming a police officer in California because he was not a U.S. citizen.  The case was docketed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2013.  Briefs were filed on May 12, 2014, and an oral argument was made on February 9, 2015.  On June 5, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 3-0 to deny birthright citizenship to American Samoans, ruling that the guarantee of such citizenship to citizens in the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to unincorporated U.S. territories.  On February 1, 2016, attorneys filed a petition requesting that the Supreme Court of the United States review the Appeals Court's decision.
Answer: the Supreme Court