Question: which case was decided earlier, Fletcher v. Peck or South Carolina v. Katzenbach

Context paragraphs:
South Carolina v. Katzenbach: South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966) is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court rejected a challenge by the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the Attorney General of the United States (at the time, Nicholas Katzenbach).

Fletcher v. Peck: Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) , is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Supreme Court first ruled a state law unconstitutional.  The decision also helped create a growing precedent for the sanctity of legal contracts and hinted that Native Americans did not hold title to their own lands (an idea fully realized in "Johnson v. M'Intosh").

South Carolina v. Gathers: South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that testimony in the form of a victim impact statement is only admissible during the sentencing phase of a trial if it directly relates to the "circumstances of the crime".  This case was later overruled by the Supreme Court decision in "Payne v. Tennessee" 501 U.S. 808 (1991).

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan &amp; Trust Co.: Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) , "affirmed on rehearing", 158 U.S. 601 (1895) , with a ruling of 5–4, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned.  The decision was superseded in 1913 by the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  A separate holding regarding the taxation of interest income on certain bonds was overruled by the Supreme Court in 1988 in the case of "South Carolina v. Baker".

South Carolina v. North Carolina: South Carolina v. North Carolina, 558 U.S. 256 (2010) is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States settled a dispute between the states of South Carolina and North Carolina regarding which parties may intervene in litigation between two states over water rights.  By a 5-4 vote, the Court held that an interstate water authority and the Duke Energy Corporation could intervene, while ruling unanimously that the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, could not.

Shafer v. South Carolina: Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U.S. 36 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001.  The case concerned the ability of a defendant to tell the jury that, absent a penalty of death, a penalty of life imprisonment would not permit early release of a prisoner on parole.  While the question had been decided in the case of "Simmons v. South Carolina", this case dealt with the extent of the ruling.

South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc.: South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc., 476 U.S. 498 (1986), is an important U.S. Supreme Court precedent for aboriginal title in the United States decided in the wake of "County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State" (Oneida II) (1985).  Distinguishing "Oneida II", the Court held that federal policy did not preclude the application of a state statute of limitations to the land claim of a tribe that had been terminated, such as the Catawba tribe.

Yazoo land scandal: The Yazoo land scandal, Yazoo fraud, Yazoo land fraud, or Yazoo land controversy was a massive real-estate fraud perpetrated, in the mid-1790s, by Georgia governor George Mathews and the Georgia General Assembly.  Georgia politicians sold large tracts of territory in the Yazoo lands, in what are now portions of the present-day states Alabama and Mississippi, to political insiders at very low prices in 1794.  Although the law enabling the sales was overturned by reformers the following year, its ability to do so was challenged in the courts, eventually reaching the US Supreme Court.  In the landmark decision in "Fletcher v. Peck" (1810), the Court ruled the contracts were binding and the state could not retroactively invalidate the earlier land sales.  It was one of the first times the Supreme Court had overturned a state law, and it justified many claims for those lands.

Jared Irwin: Jared Irwin (1750 – March 1, 1818) served twice as elected Governor of Georgia (1796–1798) and (1806–1809).  He first was elected to office as a reformer based on public outrage about the Yazoo land scandal.  He signed a bill that nullified the Yazoo Act, which had authorized the land sales.  Challenges to land claims purchased under the former act led to the United States Supreme Court's hearing the case "Fletcher v. Peck" (1810).  In a landmark decision, the Court upheld the land contracts, and ruled that the state law was unconstitutional in trying to nullify valid contracts.

Payne v. Tennessee: Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that testimony in the form of a victim impact statement is admissible during the sentencing phase of a trial and, in death penalty cases, does not violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment.  "Payne" narrowed two of the Courts' precedents: "Booth v. Maryland" (1987) and "South Carolina v. Gathers" (1989).

Supporting paragraphs: South Carolina v. Katzenbach Fletcher v. Peck
Answer: Fletcher v. Peck