Question: Do the United States Supreme Court cases Grutter v. Bollinger and Frontiero v. Richardson both relate to preventing discrimination?

Context paragraphs:
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.

Frontiero v. Richardson: Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which decided that benefits given by the United States military to the family of service members cannot be given out differently because of sex.

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.

Chy Lung v. Freeman: Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876) was a United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that the power to set rules surrounding immigration, and to manage foreign relations, rested with the United States Federal Government, rather than with the states.  The case has been cited in other Supreme Court cases related to government authority on matters relating to immigration policy and immigration enforcement, most recently in "Arizona v. United States" (2012).

Norris v. Alabama: Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (1935) , was one of the cases decided by the United States Supreme Court that arose out of the trial of the Scottsboro Boys.  The Supreme Court held that the systematic exclusion of African Americans from jury service violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The case was a significant advance in the Supreme Court's criminal procedure jurisprudence.  Building on the existing precedent of "Strauder v. West Virginia" (1880) and "Neal v. Delaware" (1882), the Supreme Court addressed an Alabama statute that was facially neutral, but held that a criminal defendant could establish a prima facie claim of discrimination by showing that a substantial number of African Americans live in a community and that African Americans have been excluded from serving on juries.

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).

Grutter v. Bollinger: Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School.  Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5–4 decision and joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling interest in promoting class diversity.  The court held that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor "underrepresented minority groups", but that also took into account many other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant, did not amount to a quota system that would have been unconstitutional under "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke".

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.

Maureen Mahoney: Maureen E. Mahoney (born August 28, 1954) is a former deputy solicitor general and "top appellate lawyer" at the law firm of Latham & Watkins in Washington, D.C., who has argued cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.  Notably, she argued on behalf of the University of Michigan and its affirmative action program in "Grutter v. Bollinger" (2003), in which the Court decided in favor of Michigan by a 5–4 vote.

Fisher v. University of Texas (2013): Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) , also known as Fisher I (to distinguish it from the 2016 case), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin.  The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the University and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny, articulated in "Grutter v. Bollinger" (2003) and "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke" (1978), to its admissions program.  The Court's ruling in "Fisher" took "Grutter" and "Bakke" as given and did not directly revisit the constitutionality of using race as a factor in college admissions.

Supporting paragraphs: Grutter v. Bollinger Frontiero v. Richardson
Answer: yes