Question: United States v. Cruikshank and Ex parte Young were both cases decided in which US court?
Context: 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). The Taney Court (1836–1864) heard thirty criminal law cases, approximately one per year.  Notable cases include "Prigg v. Pennsylvania" (1842), "United States v. Rogers" (1846), "Ableman v. Booth" (1858), "Ex parte Vallandigham" (1861), and "United States v. Jackalow" (1862). Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) , was a United States Supreme Court case which held that Article One of the U.S. Constitution did not give the United States Congress the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states that is further protected under the Eleventh Amendment.  Such abrogation is permitted where it is necessary to enforce the rights of citizens guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment as per "Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer" 427 U.S. 445 (1976).  The case also held that the doctrine of "Ex parte Young", 209 U.S. 123 (1908), which allows state officials to be sued in their official capacity for prospective injunctive relief, was inapplicable under these circumstances, because any remedy was limited to the one that Congress had provided. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) , is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts against officials acting on behalf of states of the union to proceed despite the State's Sovereign immunity, when the State acted unconstitutionally. The Marshall Court (1801–1835) heard forty-one criminal law cases, slightly more than one per year.  Among such cases are "United States v. Simms" (1803), "United States v. More" (1805), "Ex parte Bollman" (1807), "United States v. Hudson" (1812), "Cohens v. Virginia" (1821), "United States v. Perez" (1824), "Worcester v. Georgia" (1832), and "United States v. Wilson" (1833). Ex parte Endo, or Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Justices unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States.  Although the Court did not touch on the constitutionality of the exclusion of people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast—which they had found not to violate citizen rights in their "Korematsu v. United States" decision on the same date—the Endo ruling nonetheless led to the reopening of the West Coast to Japanese Americans after their incarceration in camps across the U.S. interior during World War II. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) was an important United States Supreme Court decision in United States constitutional law, one of the earliest to deal with the application of the Bill of Rights to state governments following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ex parte McQuillon, 16 F. Cas.  347 (1861), was a case decided in August 1861 by United States district court for the southern district of New York involving a writ of habeas corpus.  Judge Betts issued the writ for Purcell McQuillon, who was being held in military custody at Fort Lafayette, but the commandant of the fort declined to bring McQuillon before the court as demanded, citing an order from Gen. Winfield Scott.  Over the objection of McQuillon's attorney, Judge Betts took no further action on the case, declaring that it would be indecorous to openly disagree with Chief Justice Taney's reasoning in "ex parte Merryman", but that the Constitution must be defended in whatever way it can be and the public would not want everyone to have access to habeas corpus during the Civil War. Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Coeur d'Alene Tribe could not maintain an action against the state of Idaho to press its claim to Lake Coeur d'Alene due to the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit, notwithstanding the exception recognized in "Ex parte Young".  The case was an important precedent for aboriginal title in the United States and sovereign immunity in the United States. The Chase Court (1864–1873) issued thirty-five opinions in criminal cases over nine years, at a significantly higher rate than the Marshall Court or Taney Court before it.  Notable such cases include "Ex parte Milligan" (1866), "Pervear v. Massachusetts" (1866), "Ex parte McCardle" (1867, 1869), "Ex parte Yerger" (1868), and "United States v. Kirby" (1868).
Answer: United States Supreme Court