Question: Which case happened first, Reynolds v. United States, or Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña?
Context: A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F.Supp.2d 896 (2000), was the district court case which preceded the landmark intellectual property case of "A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.", 239 F.3d 1004 (2001).  The case was heard by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  Napster appealed this case to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. George Reynolds (January 1, 1842 – August 9, 1909) was a general authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), a longtime secretary to the First Presidency of the LDS Church, and a party to the 1878 United States Supreme Court case "Reynolds v. United States", the first freedom of religion case to issue from that court. During the tenure of Morrison Waite as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (March 4, 1874 through March 23, 1888), the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented volume and frequency of criminal cases.  In just fourteen years, the Court heard 106 criminal cases, almost as many cases as the Supreme Court had heard in the period from its creation to the appointment of Waite as Chief Justice.  Notable cases include "United States v. Cruikshank" (1875), "United States v. Reese" (1875), "Reynolds v. United States" (1878), "Wilkerson v. Utah" (1879), the "Trade-Mark Cases" (1879), "Strauder v. West Virginia" (1880), "Pace v. Alabama" (1883), "United States v. Harris" (1883), "Ex parte Crow Dog" (1883), "Hurtado v. California" (1884), "Clawson v. United States" (1885), "Yick Wo v. Hopkins" (1886), "United States v. Kagama" (1886), "Ker v. Illinois" (1886), and "Mugler v. Kansas" (1887). Charles "Chuck" Morgan Jr. (March 11, 1930 – January 8, 2009) was an American civil rights attorney from Alabama who played a key role in establishing the principle of "one man, one vote" in the Supreme Court of the United States decision in the 1964 case "Reynolds v. Sims" and represented Julian Bond and Muhammad Ali in their legal battles. Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that intermediate scrutiny should be applied to equal protection challenges to federal statutes using benign racial classifications.  The Court distinguished the previous year's decision "City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company", 488 U.S. 469 (1989), by noting that it applied only to actions by state and local governments.  "Metro Broadcasting" was overruled by "Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña", 515 U.S. 200 (1995), which held that strict scrutiny should be applied to federal laws that use benign racial classifications. Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. ___ (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the ruling in "Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky" could not be applied retroactively, because the "Padilla" case applied a new rule to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky held that the Sixth Amendment made it mandatory for criminal defense attorneys to advise non-citizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea.  While Padilla v. Kentucky was a case related to immigration and deportation, Justice Scalia worried that there was "no logical stopping point" to how Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky can be applied.  Justice Scalia wondered if the same logic could be extended and applied to numerous other cases, and felt it would be impossible for attorneys to make sure any client was informed of all the potential legal consequences post trial. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.)  145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment.  "Reynolds" was the first Supreme Court opinion to address the Impartial Jury and the Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that racial classifications, imposed by the federal government, must be analyzed under a standard of "strict scrutiny," the most stringent level of review which requires that racial classifications be narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests.  Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion of the Court, which effectively overturned "Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC", 497 U.S. 547 (1990) , in which the Court had created a two tiered system for analyzing racial classifications.  Adarand held the federal government to the same standards as the state and local governments through a process of "reverse incorporation," in which the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause was held to bind the federal government to the same standards as state and local governments are bound under the 14th Amendment. Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. was a case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California regarding the copyrightability of digitized typefaces (computer fonts).  The case is notable since typeface designs in general are not protected under United States copyright law, as determined in "Eltra Corp. v. Ringer".  Since that case, the United States Copyright Office has published policy decisions acknowledging the registration of computer programs that generate typefaces.  In this case, the court held that Adobe's Utopia font was protectable under copyright and Southern Software, Inc.'s Veracity font was substantially similar and infringing. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that unlike in the election of the United States Senate, in the election of "any" chamber of a state legislature the electoral districts must be roughly equal in population (thus negating the traditional function of a State Senate, which was to allow rural counties to counter balance large towns and cities).  The case was brought on behalf of voters in Alabama by M.O. Sims, a taxpayer in Birmingham, Alabama, but affected both northern and southern states that had similarly failed to reapportion their legislatures in keeping with changes in state population after its application in five companion cases in Colorado, New York, Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware.
Answer: Reynolds v. United States