Question: Botiller v. Dominguz was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that dealt with a region of the southwestern United States that was the third largest acquisition of territory in US history, with what being the largest? 

Context paragraphs:
Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana: Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana, 2011 MT 328, is a decision by the Montana Supreme Court ruling that the broad free speech protections given to corporations in "Citizens United v. FEC" do not apply to Montana's campaign finance laws.  The United States Supreme Court reversed the Montana Supreme Court's decision in "American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock", 567, U.S. ___ (2012), in a short, "per curiam" opinion issued without oral argument.  The Court wrote only that the legal issue had already been precluded by "Citizens United", and this case offered no new arguments and failed to distinguish that prior decision.

United States v. Hamilton: United States v. Hamilton, 3 U.S. 17 (1795) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which a defendant committed on a charge of treason was released on bail, despite having been imprisoned upon a warrant of committal by a district court judge.  The Judiciary Act of 1789 stated that "upon all arrests in criminal cases, bail shall be admitted, except where the punishment may be death, in which cases it shall not be admitted but by the supreme or a circuit court, or by a justice of the supreme court, or a judge of a district court, who shall exercise their discretion therein, regarding the nature and circumstances of the offence, and of the evidence, and the usages of law."  Ordinarily, habeas corpus was used to release prisoners held by the judgment of the executive, but not for those who commitment had been authorized by a court order.  Hamilton's attorney argued that the district court judge did not hold a hearing before issuing a warrant for his commitment to jail and that the affidavits alleging treasonous activity were weak, while the government urged that the Judiciary Act did not give the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to review the district court's decision unless there was new information or misconduct.  The Supreme Court set bail, but without addressing either attorney's arguments.

Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands: The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands is the highest court in the territory of the United States Virgin Islands.  The Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction over all appeals from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, a trial level court, on January 29, 2007.  There are three Supreme Court justices who are each appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Legislature for a ten-year term.  Appointments are for life.  The Supreme Court consists of a Chief Justice and two Associate Justices.  There is no intermediate court of appeals, and the Supreme Court does not have discretion in hearing appeals.  Appeals of Supreme Court decisions were heard by writ of certiorari by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit until December 29, 2012, but since then they have been heard by the United States Supreme Court.

Marshal of the United States Supreme Court: The Marshal of the United States Supreme Court is the person, similar to a bailiff, who attends the Supreme Court of the United States.  The Marshal of the United States Supreme Court controls the United States Supreme Court Police, a security police service answerable to the court itself rather than to the president or attorney general.  It handles security for the Supreme Court building and for the justices personally.

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.

Freeport Doctrine: The Freeport Doctrine was articulated by Stephen A. Douglas at the second of the Lincoln-Douglas debates on August 27, 1858, in Freeport, Illinois.  Former one-term U.S. Representative Abraham Lincoln was campaigning to take Douglas' U.S. Senate seat by strongly opposing all attempts to expand the geographic area in which slavery was practiced.  Lincoln tried to force Douglas to choose between the principle of popular sovereignty proposed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act (which left the fate of slavery in a U.S. territory up to its inhabitants), and the majority decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of "Dred Scott v. Sandford", which stated that slavery could not legally be excluded from U.S. territories (since Douglas professed great respect for Supreme Court decisions, and accused the Republicans of disrespecting the court, yet this aspect of the "Dred Scott" decision was contrary to Douglas' views and politically unpopular in Illinois).  Instead of making a direct choice, Douglas' response stated that despite the court's ruling, slavery could be prevented from any territory by the refusal of the people living in that territory to pass laws favorable to slavery.  Likewise, if the people of the territory supported slavery, legislation would provide for its continued existence.

Mexican Cession: The Mexican Cession of 1848 is a historical name in the United States for the region of the modern day southwestern United States that Mexico ceded to the U.S. in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848.  It had not been part of the areas east of the Rio Grande which had been claimed by the Republic of Texas, though the Texas annexation resolution two years earlier had not specified the southern and western boundary of Texas.  The Mexican Cession (529,000 sq. miles) was the third largest acquisition of territory in US history.  The largest was the Louisiana Purchase, with some 827,000 sq. miles, followed by the acquisition of Alaska (about 586,000 sq. miles).

V.L. v. E.L.: V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. ___ (2016) , is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the adoption rights of same-sex couples.  In 2007, a Georgia Superior Court granted adoption rights to V.L., the partner of E.L., the woman who gave birth to their three children.  However, after moving back to Alabama, the couple split up.  E.L. tried to block V.L. from seeing the children, but V.L. filed a lawsuit seeking visitation and other parental rights.  On September 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the state did not have to recognize the adoption judgment, saying that the Georgia court misapplied its own state law.  The court voided the recognition of the adoption judgment in Alabama.  V.L. petitioned the United States Supreme Court to stay the ruling during her appeal and allow her to see her children.  On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending their action on a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by V.L. On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court by per curiam summary disposition.

Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board: Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court decision involving Florida voters during the 2000 presidential election.  In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court requested clarification from the Florida Supreme Court regarding a decision it had made.  Shortly after the Florida Supreme Court provided those clarifications, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the election in favor of George W. Bush over Al Gore in the case of "Bush v. Gore".

Botiller v. Dominguez: Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238 (1889), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court dealing with the validity of Spanish or Mexican land grants in the Mexican Cession, the region of the present day southwestern United States that was ceded to the U.S. by Mexico in 1848 under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Supporting paragraphs: Botiller v. Dominguez Mexican Cession
Answer: Louisiana Purchase