Question: The Special Division was upheld in a case that decided which act was Constitutional?

Context paragraphs:
Special Division: The Special Division is a division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  28 U.S.C. § 49 (1982 ed., Supp.  V) (Title VI of the Ethics in Government Act).  It consists of three circuit court judges or justices appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States.  One of the judges must be a judge of the DC Circuit, and no two of the judges may be named to the Special Division from a particular court.  The judges are appointed for 2-year terms, with any vacancy being filled only for the remainder of the 2-year period.  Its constitutionality was upheld in Morrison v. Olson.

SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC: SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 154 F.3d 226 (5th Cir.  1998), was a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that upheld §§ 271-275 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as constitutional against a challenge that the provisions acted as a bill of attainder.

Morrison v. Olson: Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) , is a United States federal court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the Independent Counsel Act was constitutional.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey: Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the constitutionality of several Pennsylvania state statutory provisions regarding abortion was challenged.  The Court's plurality opinion reaffirmed the central holding of "Roe v. Wade" stating that "matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment."  The Court's plurality opinion upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion while altering the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right, crafting the "undue burden" standard for abortion restrictions.  "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" differs from "Roe," however, because under "Roe" the state could not regulate abortions in the first trimester whereas under "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" the state can regulate abortions in the first trimester, or any point before the point of viability, and beyond as long as that regulation does not pose an undue burden on women's fundamental right to an abortion.  Applying this new standard of review, the Court upheld four regulations and invalidated the requirement of spousal notification.

R v Hauser: R v Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, where, In a four to three decision, the Court upheld the federal Narcotic Control Act as constitutional under the peace, order and good government power.  This case is particularly unusual as the Act had previously held to be constitutional under the Criminal law power in the decision of "Industrial Acceptance Corp. v.  The Queen" [1953] 2 S.C.R. 273.

Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924: The Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924 greatly influenced the development of eugenics in the twentieth century.  The act was based on model legislation written by Harry H. Laughlin and challenged by the Supreme Court decision of Buck v. Bell.  The Supreme Court upheld the law; consequentially, proving that it was constitutional and making it model law for sterilization laws in other states.  Justice Holmes wrote that a patient may be sterilized "on complying with the very careful provisions by which the act protects the patients from possible abuse."  Between 1924 and 1979, Virginia sterilized over 7,000 individuals under the act.  The act was never declared unconstitutional; however, in 2001, the Virginia General Assembly passed a joint resolution apologizing for the misuse of "a respectable, 'scientific' veneer to cover activities of those who held blatantly racist views."  In 2015, the Assembly agreed to compensate individuals sterilized under the act.

Corfield v. Coryell: Corfield v. Coryell (6 Fed.  Cas.  546, no. 3,230 C.C.E.D.Pa.  1823) is a landmark 1823 federal circuit court case decided by Justice Bushrod Washington, sitting as a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  In it, he upheld a New Jersey regulation forbidding non-residents from gathering oysters and clams against a challenge that New Jersey's law violated the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause and that the New Jersey law regulated interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause.  The case is available in Thayer's Cases on Constitutional Law, Part 2

Plessy v. Ferguson: Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896) was a landmark constitutional law case of the US Supreme Court decided in 1896.  It upheld state racial segregation laws for public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal".  The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan.

Cabell v. Chavez-Salido: Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, 454 U.S. 432 (1982), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld a state law as constitutional that excluded aliens from positions as probation officers.  The Court found that probation officers fell within the political function exception to strict scrutiny equal protection analysis because probation officers exercise discretionary power involving a basic governmental function that gives them authority over the individual.

Asho tribe: Asho people (Burmese: my ), one of the tribes of the Chin people, are native to Arakan, Magwe Special Division, Pegu Special Division, Irrawaddy Special Division and some in Yangon Special Division.  They are much influenced by the Burmese in their daily life.  They are well educated and having high profile jobs in the Myanmar government.

Supporting paragraphs: Special Division Morrison v. Olson
Answer: Independent Counsel Act