Question: The cases Barron v. Baltimore and Cooper v. Aaron both are landmark cases in which court?

Context paragraphs:
Cooper v. Aaron: Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) , was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the states are bound by the Court's decisions and must enforce them even if the states disagreed with them.

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).

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.

Landmark Cases in Family Law: Landmark Cases in Family Law (2011) is a book of chapters contributed by various authors, which outlines the key cases in English family law.

Barron v. Baltimore: Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.)  243 (1833), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which helped define the concept of federalism in US constitutional law.  The Court established a precedent that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments.

Constitutional colorblindness: Constitutional colorblindness is an aspect of United States Supreme Court case evaluation that began with Justice Harlan's dissent in "Plessy v. Ferguson "in 1896.  Prior to this (and for a good while afterwards), the Supreme Court considered color as a determining factor in many landmark cases.  Constitutional colorblindness holds that skin color or race is virtually never a legitimate ground for legal or political distinctions, and thus, any law that is "color conscious" is presumptively unconstitutional regardless of whether its intent is to subordinate a group, or remedy discrimination.  The concept, therefore, has been brought to bear both against vestiges of Jim Crow oppression, as well as remedial efforts aimed at overcoming such discrimination, such as affirmative action.

Public Citizen Litigation Group: Public Citizen Litigation Group is a public interest law firm in the United States known for its Supreme Court and appellate practice.  The group is the litigating arm of the non-profit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen.  Its attorneys work on cases involving health and safety regulation, consumer rights, separation of powers, access to the courts, class actions, open government, and the First Amendment.  Despite the group's small size, its staff attorneys have argued more than 56 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, including landmark cases on separation of powers, commercial speech, and consumer rights, and have gone on to prominent positions in the legal academy and the federal government.

Institutes of the Lawes of England: The Institutes of the Lawes of England are a series of legal treatises written by Sir Edward Coke.  They were first published, in stages, between 1628 and 1644.  Widely recognized as a foundational document of the common law, they have been cited in over 70 cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, including several landmark cases. For example, in "Roe v. Wade" (1973), Coke's "Institutes" are cited as evidence that under old English common law, an abortion performed before quickening was not an indictable offence.  In the much earlier case of "United States v. E. C. Knight Co." (1895), Coke's "Institutes" are quoted at some length for their definition of monopolies.  The "Institutes's" various reprinted editions well into the 19th century is a clear indication of the long lasting value placed on this work throughout especially the 18th century in Britain and Europe.  It has also been associated through the years with high literary connections.  For example, David Hume in 1764 requested it from the bookseller Andrew Millar in a cheap format for a French friend.

Lee v. Weisman: Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) was a United States Supreme Court decision regarding school prayer.  It was the first major school prayer case decided by the Rehnquist Court.  It ruled that schools may not sponsor clerics to conduct even non-denominational prayer.  The Court followed a broad interpretation of the Establishment Clause that had been standard for decades at the nation's highest court, a reaffirmation of the principles of such landmark cases as "Engel v. Vitale", 370 U.S. 421 (1962) and "Abington v. Schempp", 374 U.S. 203 (1963) .

Cooper v Hobart: Cooper v Hobart, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537, 2001 SCC 79, is a Supreme Court of Canada case that redefined the Anns test, which was adopted in "Kamloops v. Nielsen" to establish a duty of care in civil tort cases.

Supporting paragraphs: Barron v. Baltimore Cooper v. Aaron
Answer: United States Supreme Court