Question: Clinton v. Jones and Baker v. Carr were both court cases that took place in what United States court?

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).

Legal Tender Cases: The Legal Tender Cases were a series of United States Supreme Court cases in the latter part of the nineteenth century that affirmed the constitutionality of paper money.  In the 1869 case of "Hepburn v. Griswold", the Court had held that declaring paper notes to be legal tender in payment of debts existing prior to the Legal Tender Act of 1862 violated the United States Constitution.  In the "Legal Tender Cases", the Court overruled "Hepburn", beginning with "Knox v. Lee" and "Parker v. Davis" in 1871, and then "Juilliard v. Greenman" in 1884.

Baker v. Nelson: Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971) is a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a state law limiting marriage to persons of the opposite sex did not violate the U.S. Constitution.  Baker appealed, and on October 10, 1972, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question."  Because the case came to the U.S. Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not "certiorari"), the dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established "Baker v. Nelson" as precedent, though the extent of its precedential effect had been subject to debate.  In May 2013, Minnesota legalized same-sex marriage and it took effect on August 1, 2013.  Subsequently, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly overruled "Baker" in "Obergefell v. Hodges" making same-sex marriage legal nationwide.

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.

Clinton v. Jones: Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him or her, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office.

Baker v. Carr: Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that decided that redistricting (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated) issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide redistricting cases.  The defendants unsuccessfully argued that redistricting of legislative districts is a "political question", and hence not a question that may be resolved by federal courts.

Horne v. Department of Agriculture: Horne v. United States Department of Agriculture, No.  12-123, 569 U.S. ___ (2013) ; No.  14-275, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) were a pair of United States Supreme Court cases in which the Court established that the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to personal property.  The cases arose out of a dispute involving the National Raisin Reserve, when a farmer challenged a rule that required farmers to keep a portion of their crops off the market.  In "Horne I" the Court held that the plaintiff had standing to sue for violation of the United States Constitution’s takings clause.  In "Horne II" the Court held that the National Raisin Reserve was an unconstitutional violation of the takings clause.

Peloza v. Capistrano School District: Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir.  1994), was a 1994 court case heard by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which a creationist schoolteacher, John E. Peloza claimed that Establishment clause of the United States Constitution along with his own right to free speech was violated by the requirement to teach the "religion" of "evolutionism".  The court found against Peloza, finding that evolution was science not religion and that the Capistrano Unified School District school board were right to restrict his teaching of creationism in light of the 1987 Supreme Court decision "Edwards v. Aguillard".  One of the three appeals judges, Poole, partially dissented from the majority's free speech and due process opinions.  It was one in a long line court cases involving the teaching of creationism which have found against creationists.  Peloza appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.

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.

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.

Supporting paragraphs: Clinton v. Jones Baker v. Carr
Answer: Supreme Court