Question: Which court case was argued first, Engblom v. Carey or Craig v. Boren?

Context paragraphs:
Engblom v. Carey: Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir.  1982), "on rem."  572 F. Supp.  44 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), "aff'd.  per curiam" 724 F.2d 28 (2d Cir.  1983), was a court case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  It is the only significant court decision based on a direct challenge under the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner[.]"

Breithaupt v. Abram: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (1957) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that involuntary blood samples, taken by a skilled technician to determine intoxication, do not violate substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.  This case was only the second time the Court considered whether police could forcibly enter inside a suspect's body to extract evidence.  Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Tom C. Clark argued that blood tests were necessary as a matter of public policy to ensure traffic safety on roads and highways, and that "modern community living requires modern scientific methods of crime detection."  Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William O. Douglas both wrote dissenting opinions in which they argued that the involuntary blood sample taken in this case was "repulsive" and violated substantive due process.

Washington v. Recuenco: Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (2006), is the United States Supreme Court case of Recuenco, a man who was convicted of second-degree assault after he threatened his wife with a handgun, and subsequently sentenced by the Washington Supreme Court based not only on the conviction, but based on Recuenco's use of a handgun, charged as assault with a deadly weapon.  His sentencing included a three-year enhancement, a standard based on his being armed with a firearm, which is greater than the one-year enhancement he would have received for assault with a deadly weapon.  As the jury in the case had not found that Recuenco was armed with a firearm, he argued that the sentencing enhancement violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.  At the Supreme Court, the State conceded that a Blakely error had occurred, but argued that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  The Court held in a 7-2 opinion that a Blakely error could be considered harmless.

City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.: Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002) , was a United States Supreme Court case on the controversial issue of adult bookstore zoning in the city of Los Angeles.  Zoning laws dictated that no adult bookstores could be within five hundred feet of a public park, or religious establishment, or within 1000 feet of another adult establishment.  However, Alameda Books, Inc. and Highland Books, Inc. were two adult stores that operated under one roof.  They sued Los Angeles, stating the ordinance violated the first amendment.  The district court concurred with the stores, stating that the 1977 study stating there was a higher crime rate in areas with adult stores, which the law was based upon, did not support a reasonable belief that multiple-use adult establishments produce the secondary effects the city asserted as content-neutral justifications for its restrictions on adult stores.  The Court of Appeals upheld this verdict, and found that even if the ordinance were content neutral, the city failed to present evidence upon which it could reasonably rely to demonstrate that its regulation of multiple-use establishments was designed to serve its substantial interest in reducing crime.  However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city.  This reversed the decision of the lower court.  This case was argued on December 4, 2001; certiorari was granted on March 5, 2001.  "City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, 00-799, didn't involve the kind of adult material that can be regulated by the government, but rather the extent to which cities can ban "one-stop shopping" sex-related businesses."

Isabel González: Isabel González (May 2, 1882 – June 11, 1971) was a Puerto Rican activist who helped pave the way for Puerto Ricans to be given United States citizenship.  As a young unwed pregnant woman, González had her plans to find and marry the father of her unborn child derailed by the United States Treasury Department when she was excluded as an alien "likely to become a public charge" upon her arrival in New York City.  González challenged the Government of the United States in the groundbreaking case "Gonzales v. Williams" (192 U.S. 1 (1904)).  Officially the case was known as "Isabella Gonzales, Appellant, v. William Williams, United States Commissioner of Immigration at the Port of New York" No. 225, argued December 4, 7, 1903, and decided January 4, 1904.  Her case was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, filed February 27, 1903, after also having her Writ of Habeas Corpus (HC.  1-187) dismissed.  Her Supreme Court case is the first time that the Court confronted the citizenship status of inhabitants of territories acquired by the United States.  González actively pursued the cause of U.S. citizenship for all Puerto Ricans by writing letters published in "The New York Times".

Ellis v. United States of America (1907): Ellis v. United States, 206 U.S. 246 (1907) is a court case that was ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The case, which was identified as case No. 567, was argued in conjunction with three cases entitled "Eastern Dredging Company v. United States" (Nos. 664, 665, and 666) and three cases entitled "Bay State Dredging Company v. United States" (Nos. 667, 668, and 669).

Craig v. Boren: Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) , was the first case in which a majority of the United States Supreme Court determined that statutory or administrative sex classifications were subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Commonwealth v. Morrow: Commonwealth v. Morrow (1815) was a Pennsylvania decision by the Adjourned Court of Quarter Sessions for the County of Allegheny on the issue of Labor unionization.  The jury in this case agreed that the master shoemakers, the journeymen, and the public, were endangered by the association of journeymen and returned a verdict of guilty on charges of conspiracy.  The Pittsburgh Cordwainers and the Court's ruling on "Commonwealth v. Morrow" reaffirmed the Court's views on the earliest forms of American labor unionization —that activities performed by these unions were unlawful.  Prosecutors summoned former members of the journeymen cordwainers and master journeymen, most of the owners of the shops.  These witnesses provided accounts of collective bargaining, which drove nonmembers out of the work force by refusing to work with them.  Defendants argued that every man has a right to determine his own desired wages and doing so as a collective unit was lawful.  This court case established the formation of unions and its activities as unlawful, in the form of conspiracy.  The legality of unions as a legitimate entity would be established 25 years later in "Commonwealth v. Hunt", a Massachusetts Supreme Court Decision.  "Commonwealth v. Morrow", however, serves as an example of early unionization of workers in the United States, and the challenges it faced.

Bank Markazi v. Peterson: Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case that found that a law which only applied to a specific case, identified by docket number, and eliminated all of the defenses one party had raised does not violate the separation of powers in the United States Constitution between the legislative (Congress) and judicial branches of government.  The plaintiffs in the trial court, respondents in the Supreme Court, were several parties who had obtained judgments against Iran for its role in supporting state-sponsored terrorism, particularly the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, and sought execution against a bank account in New York held, through European intermediaries, on behalf of Bank Markazi, the state-owned Central Bank of Iran.  The initial plaintiffs obtained court orders preventing the transfer of funds from the account in 2008 and initiated their lawsuit in 2010.  Bank Markazi raised several defenses against the execution against the account, including that the account was not an asset "of" the bank, but rather an asset of its European intermediary, under both New York state property law and §201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.  In response to concerns that existing laws were insufficient for the account to be used to settle the judgments, Congress included a section within a 2012 bill, codified after enactment as 22 U.S.C. § 8772, that identified the pending lawsuit by docket number, applied only to the assets in the identified case, and essentially abrogated every legal basis available to Bank Markazi to prevent the plaintiffs from executing their claims against the account.  Bank Markazi then argued that § 8772 was an unconstitutional breach of the separation of power between the legislative and judicial branches of government, because it effectively directed a particular result in a single case without changing the generally applicable law.  The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit both upheld the constitutionality of § 8772 and cleared the way for the plaintiffs to execute their judgments against the account, which held about $1.75 billion in cash.

West v. Barnes: West v. Barnes, 2 U.S. 401 (1791), was the first United States Supreme Court decision and the earliest case calling for oral argument. " Van Staphorst v. Maryland" (1791) was docketed prior to "West v. Barnes" but settled before the Court heard the case: "West" was argued on August 2, 1791 and decided on August 3, 1791. " Collet v. Collet" (1791) was the first appellate case docketed with the Court but was dropped before it could be heard.  Supreme Court Reporter Alexander Dallas did not publish the justices' full opinions in "West v. Barnes", which were published in various newspapers around the country at the time, but he published an abbreviated summary of the decisions.

Supporting paragraphs: Engblom v. Carey Craig v. Boren
Answer: Craig v. Boren