Question: Which Supreme court ruling United States v. Wong Kim Ark or Wickard v. Filburn was made first ?

Context paragraphs:
Criminal law in the Waite 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).

Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana: Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana, 2011 MT 328, is a decision by the Montana Supreme Court ruling that the broad free speech protections given to corporations in "Citizens United v. FEC" do not apply to Montana's campaign finance laws.  The United States Supreme Court reversed the Montana Supreme Court's decision in "American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock", 567, U.S. ___ (2012), in a short, "per curiam" opinion issued without oral argument.  The Court wrote only that the legal issue had already been precluded by "Citizens United", and this case offered no new arguments and failed to distinguish that prior decision.

California Education Code 48907: California Education Code 48907 (1977), also known as the California Student Free Expression Law, acts as a counter to the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Supreme Court ruling, which limited the freedom of speech granted to public high school newspapers.  The Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as "forums for student expression" are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established (by policy or practice) as forums for student expression.  Ed Code 48907 affirms the right of high school newspapers to publish whatever they choose, so long as the content is not explicitly obscene, libelous, or slanderous.  The newspaper content must also pass the minimal disruption test set forth in the Supreme Court ruling on Tinker v. Des Moines (1969).  In contrast with Hazelwood, which limited First Amendment Protection to only those high school newspapers that had, through practice or policy, been established as forums for student expression, Ed Code 48907 affirms the right of all newspapers to the freedom of expression.

Hollingsworth v. Perry: Hollingsworth v. Perry refers to a series of United States federal court cases that legalized same-sex marriage in the State of California.  The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law.  This decision overturned ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage.  After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court.  The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively.  As "Hollingsworth v. Perry", it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that, in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.

V.L. v. E.L.: V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. ___ (2016) , is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the adoption rights of same-sex couples.  In 2007, a Georgia Superior Court granted adoption rights to V.L., the partner of E.L., the woman who gave birth to their three children.  However, after moving back to Alabama, the couple split up.  E.L. tried to block V.L. from seeing the children, but V.L. filed a lawsuit seeking visitation and other parental rights.  On September 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the state did not have to recognize the adoption judgment, saying that the Georgia court misapplied its own state law.  The court voided the recognition of the adoption judgment in Alabama.  V.L. petitioned the United States Supreme Court to stay the ruling during her appeal and allow her to see her children.  On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending their action on a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by V.L. On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court by per curiam summary disposition.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.  This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Same-sex marriage in the Sixth Circuit: On April 28, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments for "Obergefell v. Hodges" (Ohio), which was consolidated with three other same-sex marriage cases from the other states in the Sixth Circuit: "Tanco v. Haslam" (Tennessee), "DeBoer v. Snyder" (Michigan), "Bourke v. Beshear" (Kentucky).  On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's decision, paving the way for same-sex marriage to become legal in those states, and setting a precedent for the entire nation.  All four states complied with the ruling the same day it was issued before the mandate was actually issued.  Every state in the circuit had a district court ruling against their states' ban, but they were eventually stayed pending appeal.  The Sixth Circuit consists of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.  On August 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments for same-sex marriage cases from each state within the circuit.  On November 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit in a split 2-1 decision, upheld the states' same-sex marriage bans, reversing the district courts' rulings that struck them down.  The Sixth Circuit was the first and only circuit court since the landmark ruling "United States v. Windsor" to uphold the constitutionality of states' same-sex marriage bans which caused a circuit split.

Freedom of movement under United States law: Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."  As far back as the circuit court ruling in "Corfield v. Coryell," 6 Fed.  Cas.  546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right.  In "Paul v. Virginia," 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."  However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement.  Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as "Ward v. Maryland," 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the "Slaughter-House Cases," 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and "United States v. Harris," 106 U.S. 629 (1883).

Same-sex marriage by Circuit Court: Prior to the landmark ruling "United States v. Windsor", the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage was upheld by the Eighth Circuit in "Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning".  After the "Windsor" ruling, many same-sex marriage bans were struck down by lower courts.  The Tenth, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth circuits all ruled that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.  The cases that made it to these circuit courts originated in district courts which for the most part also struck down same-sex marriage bans.  When a circuit court struck down a state's same-sex marriage ban, it did not directly strike down same-sex marriage bans in other states within the circuit.  However, it paved the way for same-sex marriage bans to be struck down in the entire circuit due to the precedent it set for district courts within the circuit to follow.  In some states, same-sex marriage was already legal before a federal circuit court ruled on the matter.  The Sixth Circuit ruled that same-sex marriage bans were not unconstitutional and reversed the district court rulings that struck down same-sex marriage bans.  Since this was the only circuit court to rule this way post-"Windsor", this created a circuit split which ultimately led to the Supreme Court of the United States deciding to resolve the issue once and for all.  They ruled that same-sex marriage bans violate the constitution in the landmark ruling "Obergefell v. Hodges" which was the consolidated case that covered each state in the Sixth Circuit.  Some circuit courts have not ruled on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans at all.  Many circuit courts had pending same-sex marriage cases, but decided to hold off on litigation until the Supreme Court ruled on the matter.

Wickard v. Filburn: Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government.  It was a test case that was heard shortly after the United States had entered World War II.  The goal of the business interests that financed the legal challenge all the way to the Supreme Court was to convince the Court to declare the entire federal crop support program unconstitutional and thereby end it.  The Filburn decision supported what Congress had done, and said the Constitution enabled congressional regulation that included economic activity that was only indirectly related to interstate commerce.

Supporting paragraphs: United States v. Wong Kim Ark Wickard v. Filburn
Answer: United States v. Wong Kim Ark