Question: are Dusky v. United States and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan both landmark United States Supreme Court cases?

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).

Dusky v. United States: Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial.  The Court outlined the basic standards for determining competency.

United States defamation law: The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel.  (Previous English defamation law had not provided this guarantee.)  Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases.  This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states.  The 1964 case "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan", however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not".  Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbid libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be patently false.  Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

Stephen Halbrook: 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.

Heed Their Rising Voices: Heed Their Rising Voices is a 1960 newspaper advertisement published in the "New York Times".  It was published on March 29, 1960 and paid for by the "Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South".  The purpose of the advertisement was to draw attention and support towards Martin Luther King Jr. A recent felony charge of perjury was leveled against him and could have resulted in a lengthy imprisonment.  The headline of the advertisement was drawn from a phrase used in the "New York Times" editorial, "Amendment XV", published on March 19, 1960.  The advertisement became the source of a libel suit in the United States Supreme Court case "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" (1964).

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established the actual malice standard, which has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States.  It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press.  The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case, if he is a public figure, prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.  Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty of proving the defendant's knowledge and intentions, such claims by public figures rarely prevail.

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment is a 2007 non-fiction book by journalist Anthony Lewis about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The book starts by quoting the First Amendment, which prohibits the U.S. Congress from creating legislation which limits free speech or freedom of the press.  Lewis traces the evolution of civil liberties in the U.S. through key historical events.  He provides an overview of important free speech case law, including U.S. Supreme Court opinions in "Schenck v. United States" (1919), "Whitney v. California" (1927), "United States v. Schwimmer" (1929), "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" (1964), and "New York Times Co. v. United States" (1971).

New York Times Co. v. United States: New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the First Amendment.  The ruling made it possible for "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post" newspapers to publish the then-classified "Pentagon Papers" without risk of government censorship or punishment.

Evans v. Jordan: Evans v. Jordan, 13 U.S. 199 (1815) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that someone who had copied a patented invention after the patent had expired, and before the patent was restored by a private bill, would be liable for damages for patent infringement for any use continuing after the patent was restored.  It was the second published Supreme Court decision on patent law, and the first of four Supreme Court cases dealing with the Oliver Evans flour mill patent.  Like other Supreme Court patent cases prior to "Evans v. Eaton", however, this case did not deal with substantive patent law, but only with issues of statutory construction and infringement liability.

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.: Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case that rejected the argument that a separate opinion privilege existed against libel.  It was seen by legal commentators as the end of an era that began with "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" and continued with "Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.", in which the court clarified and greatly expanded the range and scope of what could be said in the press without fear of litigation.

Supporting paragraphs: Dusky v. United States New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Answer: yes