Question: Were Gates v. Collier and Boumediene v. Bush both cases in the federal court ?
Context: Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) , was a writ of habeas corpus submission made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba.  Guantanamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control.  The case was consolidated with habeas petition "Al Odah v. United States".  It challenged the legality of Boumediene's detention at the United States Naval Station military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.  Oral arguments on the combined cases were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007. Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir.  1974), was a landmark case decided in U.S. federal court that brought an end to the Trusty system and the flagrant inmate abuse that accompanied it at Mississippi State Penitentiary (Parchman) in Sunflower County, Mississippi.  It was the first case in a body of law developed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals holding that a variety of forms of corporal punishment against prisoners constituted cruel and unusual punishment and a violation of Eighth Amendment rights.  This case was also the first broad-scale intervention by a court in the supervision of prison practices. The "trustee system" (sometimes homophonically though perhaps incorrectly called "trusty system") was a strict system of discipline and security in the United States made compulsory under Mississippi state law (but also used in other states, such as Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, New York and Texas) as the method of controlling and working inmates at Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi's only prison.  It was designed to replace convict leasing.  Under this system, designated inmates were used by staff to control and administer physical punishment to other inmates according to a strict prison-determined inmate hierarchy of power.  The case of "Gates v. Collier" (Gates v. Collier Prison Reform Case, 1970–1971) ended the flagrant abuse of inmates under the trusty system and other prison abuses which had continued essentially unchanged since the building of the prison in 1903 in Mississippi.  Other states using the trusty system were also forced to give it up under this ruling. The Algerian Six are six Bosnian men (five of them citizens with dual nationality), all born in Algeria, who had been imprisoned without charges at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since January 2002.  They filed for "habeas" corpus in United States federal court and their case reached the United States Supreme Court.  It ruled in "Boumediene v. Bush" (2008) that detainees and foreign nationals had rights to file for "habeas corpus" in federal courts.  Following his review of their cases, a US District Court judge ordered five of the Bosnians to be released based on insufficient evidence. Hollingsworth v. Perry refers to a series of United States federal court cases that legalized same-sex marriage in the State of California.  The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law.  This decision overturned ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage.  After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court.  The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively.  As "Hollingsworth v. Perry", it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that, in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so. The Federal Court of Australia is an Australian superior court of record which has jurisdiction to deal with most civil disputes governed by federal law (with the exception of family law matters), along with some summary (less serious) criminal matters.  Cases are heard at first instance by single Judges.  The Court includes an appeal division referred to as the Full Court comprising three Judges, the only avenue of appeal from which lies to the High Court of Australia.  In the Australian court hierarchy, the Federal Court occupies a position equivalent to the Supreme Courts of each of the states and territories.  In relation to the other Courts in the federal stream, it is equal to the Family Court of Australia, and superior to the Federal Circuit Court.  It was established in 1976 by the Federal Court of Australia Act. Hess v. Reynolds, 113 U.S. 73 (1885) , was Supreme Court case determining whether a probate case from Michigan should be moved to federal court and, if so, which federal court should hear it.  The court issued a writ of error on the judgment of the Eastern District of Michigan federal court for remanding a case back to the state court but determined that was indeed the appropriate federal court to hear the case. Al Odah v. United States is a court case filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights and co-counsels challenging the legality of the continued detention as enemy combatants of Guantanamo detainees.  It was consolidated with "Boumediene v. Bush" (2008), which is the lead name of the decision. The Military Commissions Act of 2009, which amended the Military Commissions Act of 2006, was passed to address concerns by the United States Supreme Court.  In "Boumediene v. Bush" (2008) the court had ruled that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was unconstitutional in suspending the right of detainees to "habeas corpus".  The court ruled that detainees had the right to access US federal courts to challenge their detentions. Klaxon Company v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Company, 313 U.S. 487 (1941) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court applied the choice-of-law principles of "Erie Railroad v. Tompkins" to conflicts between laws of different states for cases sitting in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.  The court held that a federal court sitting in diversity must apply the choice-of-law doctrine of the forum state to choose between the forum state's law and the other state's law (as distinguished from the federal choice-of-law doctrines which had been used before "Erie").
Answer: no