Question: Which US Supreme Court case was earlier, Strauder v. West Virginia or Wisconsin v. Yoder?  
Context: Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), is the case in which the United States Supreme Court found that Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade.  The parents' fundamental right to freedom of religion was determined to outweigh the state's interest in educating its children.  The case is often cited as a basis for parents' right to educate their children outside of traditional private or public schools. Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (1935) , was one of the cases decided by the United States Supreme Court that arose out of the trial of the Scottsboro Boys.  The Supreme Court held that the systematic exclusion of African Americans from jury service violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The case was a significant advance in the Supreme Court's criminal procedure jurisprudence.  Building on the existing precedent of "Strauder v. West Virginia" (1880) and "Neal v. Delaware" (1882), the Supreme Court addressed an Alabama statute that was facially neutral, but held that a criminal defendant could establish a prima facie claim of discrimination by showing that a substantial number of African Americans live in a community and that African Americans have been excluded from serving on juries. Two Supreme Court cases, Wisconsin v. Michigan, 295 U.S. 455 (1935) and Wisconsin v. Michigan, 297 U.S. 547 (1936), settled a border dispute between Wisconsin and Michigan. Roberts v. Boston, 59 Mass. (5 Cush.)  198 (1850), was a court case seeking to end racial discrimination in Boston public schools.  The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of Boston, finding no constitutional basis for the suit.  The case was later cited by the US Supreme Court in "Plessy v. Ferguson", which established the "separate but equal" standard. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880) , was a United States Supreme Court case about racial discrimination.  "Strauder" was the first time that the Court had reversed a state criminal conviction for a violation of a constitutional provision concerning criminal procedure. 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). Rodríguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1 (1982) , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States heard on appeal from the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico whether Puerto Rico may by statute vest in a political party the power to fill an interim vacancy in the Puerto Rico Legislature.  The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico held that such a procedure did not violate the United States Constitution, and the US Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico.  The case was of some interest to close followers of the Court as it featured the one and only return of former associate justice, Abe Fortas, now in private practice, at oral argument on behalf of the appellee. Virginia v. West Virginia, 220 U.S. 1 (1911) , is a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the state of West Virginia was bound by its constitution to pay one-third of the outstanding debt of the commonwealth of Virginia as of January 1, 1861.  In its ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that the geographic narrowness of the port and road improvements made by Virginia (most of which occurred outside West Virginia's current borders) were incurred by the people of the entire state and did not discharge West Virginia's duty to pay.  The Court also held that Virginia's attempts to discharge its debts while its negotiations with West Virginia continued did not absolve West Virginia of its duty to pay.  Although both states had already agreed on the amount to be paid, the Court ordered them to negotiate over interest computation. Stephen P. Halbrook is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and an author and lawyer known for his litigation on behalf of the National Rifle Association.  He has written extensively about the original meanings of the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment (the latter as applied to Second Amendment rights).  He has argued and won three cases before the US Supreme Court: "Printz v. United States", "United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company", and "Castillo v. United States".  He has also written briefs in many other cases, including the Supreme Court cases "Small v. United States" (pertaining to the Gun Control Act of 1968) and "McDonald v. Chicago".  In "District of Columbia v. Heller", he wrote a brief on behalf of the majority of both houses of Congress.  More broadly, his decades of research on the Second Amendment contributed to the intellectual foundation of the "Heller" decision.  He has written many books and articles on the topic of gun control, some of which have been cited in Supreme Court opinions ("Heller", "McDonald", "Printz v. United States").  He has testified before congress on multiple occasions.  Halbrook’s most important scholarly contribution, however, was the book "That Every Man Be Armed", originally published in 1986.  The book was the most thorough analysis of the legal history and original intent of the Second Amendment. Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367 (1929) also referred to as the Chicago Sanitary District Case, is an opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the equitable power of the United States can be used to impose positive action on one state in a situation in which nonaction would result in damage to the interests of other states.  Pursuant to Article Three of the United States Constitution, the case was heard under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction because it involved a controversy between two states, Illinois and Wisconsin.  Chief Justice William Howard Taft wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Answer: Strauder v. West Virginia