Question: Which US Supreme Court case was argued first, J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. or Katz v. United States?

Context paragraphs:
Katz v. United States: Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) , is a United States Supreme Court case discussing the nature of the "right to privacy" and the legal definition of a "search".  The Court's ruling refined previous interpretations of the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment to count immaterial intrusion with technology as a search, overruling "Olmstead v. United States" and "Goldman v. United States".  "Katz" also extended Fourth Amendment protection to all areas where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

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.

J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.: J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel.  T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that making peremptory challenges based solely on a prospective juror's sex is unconstitutional.  "J.E.B." extended the court's existing precedent in "Batson v. Kentucky" (1986), which found race-based peremptory challenges in criminal trials unconstitutional, and "Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company" (1991), which extended that principle to civil trials.  As in "Batson", the court found that sex-based challenges violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Blake Percival: Blake Percival is the former Director of Fieldwork Services, WPA for USIS.  Percival became a whistleblower after alleging he was terminated from USIS for not ordering his subordinates to submit cases to the U.S. Government for payment that had not been completed.  Percival worked for USIS from 2001 to June 2011, when, according to his suit, he was fired after refusing to order his employees to continue an elaborate fraud known as dumping.  In July 2011 Percival filed a "qui tam" whistleblower suit under seal in U.S. District Court in Montgomery, Alabama.  Percival’s allegations were investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and in October 2013 the DOJ joined Percival’s suit and removed the seal.  The case, "United States of America ex rel.  Blake Percival v. U.S. Investigations Services", Civil Action No. 11-CV-527-WKW, was filed in U.S. District Court, Middle District of Alabama (Northern Division).  The DOJ filed their formal complaint on January 22, 2014.  This case is ongoing, and was moved to Washington, D.C. on April 25, 2014.

Mancusi v. DeForte: Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364 , is a 1968 decision of the United States Supreme Court on privacy and the Fourth Amendment.  It originated in the lower courts as United States ex rel.  Frank DeForte, appellant v. Vincent R. Mancusi, Warden of Attica Prison, Attica, New York, appellee, a petition for a writ of "habeas corpus" by a prisoner who had exhausted all his state appeals.  By a 6–3 margin the Court affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's reversal of a district court denial of the petition.

Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy: Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy, 162 U.S. 283 (1896), was the first litigation of aboriginal title in the United States by a tribal plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the United States since "Cherokee Nation v. Georgia" (1831).  It was the first such litigation by an indigenous plaintiff since "Fellows v. Blacksmith" (1857) and its companion case of "New York ex rel.  Cutler v. Dibble" (1858).  The New York courts held that the 1788 Phelps and Gorham Purchase did not violate the Nonintercourse Act, one of the provisions of which prohibits purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government, and that (even if it did) the Seneca Nation of New York was barred by the state statute of limitations from challenging the transfer of title.  The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the merits of lower court ruling because of the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine.

Batson v. Kentucky: Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race.  The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The case gave rise to the term "Batson challenge", an objection to a peremptory challenge based on the standard established by the Supreme Court's decision in this case.  Subsequent jurisprudence has resulted in the extension of "Batson" to civil cases ("Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company") and cases where jurors are excluded on the basis of sex ("J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel.  T.B.").

Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.: Mississippi ex rel.  Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 571 U.S. ___ (2014) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined whether a class-action suit was properly removed to federal district court as a mass action under the Class Action Fairness Act.  The court unanimously determined (Justice Sotomayor delivering the court's opinion) that since the state of Mississippi was the sole plaintiff in the lawsuit, the case did not constitute a mass action for the purposes of the Act.

Accardi v. Shaughnessy: United States ex rel.  Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case, in administrative law, in which the Court held that administrative agencies are obliged to follow their own regulations.  Under the Accardi Doctrine, agencies which do not follow their own regulations or procedures run the risk of having their actions invalidated if challenged in court.

New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble: New York ex rel.  Cutler v. Dibble, 62 U.S. (21 How.)  366 (1858), was a companion case to the more well-known "Fellows v. Blacksmith" (1857).  At the time "Fellows" was decided, this case had reached the U.S. Supreme Court but had not yet been argued.

Supporting paragraphs: J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. Katz v. United States
Answer: Katz v. United States