Question: Between Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States and Lochner v. New York which occurred first?
Context: New York State Route 990V (NY 990V) is an east–west reference route in Schoharie County, New York, in the United States.  It extends for 6.15 mi from an intersection with NY 30 in the town of Gilboa to a junction with County Route 18 (CR 18) in the town of Conesville, where the road continues east as CR 3.  Reference routes in New York are typically unsigned; however, NY 990V is fully signed with touring route markers.  The road is a remnant of New York State Route 342, a route assigned as part of the 1930 renumbering of state highways in New York.  The NY 342 designation was removed in the late 1940s; however, its former routing from Gilboa to Conesville remained a state highway and became NY 990V when the modern reference route system in New York was created. Lemmon v. New York, or Lemmon v.  The People, popularly known as the Lemmon Slave Case, was a proceeding initiated in 1852 by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted by the Superior Court in New York City and eventually affirmed by the New York Court of Appeals in 1860 on the eve of the Civil War.  The result of issuing the writ was the release of eight slaves including six children, who were brought into New York by their Virginia slave owners, while in transit during relocation to Texas.  John Jay (namesake of his grandfather, the diplomat for the Continental Congress and again during the Washington Administration, former Governor of New York and first Chief Justice of the United States) was the guiding spirit behind the litigation.  The attorney for the state on appeal (prosecuting for the release of the slaves) was Chester A. Arthur (future president of the United States).  Counsel to him were William M. Evarts, Joseph Blunt and Erastus D. Culver. Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act (Coal Act) constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking of property which required the Act to be invalidated.  The import of this decision is that it was made in the context of a purely economic regulation.  The plurality examines the statute and its resultant harm as an ad hoc factual inquiry based on factors delineated in Penn Central such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action. ("Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City"), The decision thereby moved beyond the traditional notions of equal protection which had been applied to economic regulation since the time of ("Lochner v. New York"), requiring extreme deference to Congress, and applied a regulatory takings analysis to the problem resulting in a much less deferential result.  While the plurality recognizes that this is not a traditional takings case where the government appropriates private property for public use, they also state this is the type of case where the "Armstrong Principle" of preventing the government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.  ("Armstrong v. United States", 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960)) However, while the plurality seems to invalidate this particular law on takings grounds, the concurrences and the dissents warn of such an analysis as this should actually be examined under substantive due process or ex post facto theories. Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy, 162 U.S. 283 (1896), was the first litigation of aboriginal title in the United States by a tribal plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the United States since "Cherokee Nation v. Georgia" (1831).  It was the first such litigation by an indigenous plaintiff since "Fellows v. Blacksmith" (1857) and its companion case of "New York ex rel.  Cutler v. Dibble" (1858).  The New York courts held that the 1788 Phelps and Gorham Purchase did not violate the Nonintercourse Act, one of the provisions of which prohibits purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government, and that (even if it did) the Seneca Nation of New York was barred by the state statute of limitations from challenging the transfer of title.  The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the merits of lower court ruling because of the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."  Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.  In the process, "Whitney v. California" (1927) was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on "Schenck v. United States" (1919), "Abrams v. United States" (1919), "Gitlow v. New York" (1925), and "Dennis v. United States" (1951). Isabel González (May 2, 1882 – June 11, 1971) was a Puerto Rican activist who helped pave the way for Puerto Ricans to be given United States citizenship.  As a young unwed pregnant woman, González had her plans to find and marry the father of her unborn child derailed by the United States Treasury Department when she was excluded as an alien "likely to become a public charge" upon her arrival in New York City.  González challenged the Government of the United States in the groundbreaking case "Gonzales v. Williams" (192 U.S. 1 (1904)).  Officially the case was known as "Isabella Gonzales, Appellant, v. William Williams, United States Commissioner of Immigration at the Port of New York" No. 225, argued December 4, 7, 1903, and decided January 4, 1904.  Her case was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, filed February 27, 1903, after also having her Writ of Habeas Corpus (HC.  1-187) dismissed.  Her Supreme Court case is the first time that the Court confronted the citizenship status of inhabitants of territories acquired by the United States.  González actively pursued the cause of U.S. citizenship for all Puerto Ricans by writing letters published in "The New York Times". The "Lochner" era is a period in American legal history from 1897 to 1937 in which the Supreme Court of the United States is said to have made it a common practice "to strike down economic regulations adopted by a State based on the Court’s own notions of the most appropriate means for the State to implement its considered policies," by using its interpretation of substantive due process to strike down laws held to be infringing on economic liberty or private contract rights.  The era takes its name from a 1905 case, "Lochner v. New York".  The beginning of the era is usually marked earlier, with the Court's decision in "Allgeyer v. Louisiana" (1897), and its end marked forty years later in the case of "West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish" (1937), which overturned an earlier "Lochner"-era decision. Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the U.S. Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution's Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment is a 2007 non-fiction book by journalist Anthony Lewis about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The book starts by quoting the First Amendment, which prohibits the U.S. Congress from creating legislation which limits free speech or freedom of the press.  Lewis traces the evolution of civil liberties in the U.S. through key historical events.  He provides an overview of important free speech case law, including U.S. Supreme Court opinions in "Schenck v. United States" (1919), "Whitney v. California" (1927), "United States v. Schwimmer" (1929), "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" (1964), and "New York Times Co. v. United States" (1971). Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905) was a landmark US labor law case in the US Supreme Court, holding that limits to working time violated the Fourteenth Amendment.  This decision has since been overturned.
Answer: Lochner v. New York