Question: Which case United States v. Wong Kim Ark or  Schmerber v. California was decided first ?

Context paragraphs:
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).

United States v. American Bell Telephone Co.: United States v. Bell Telephone Co., 167 U.S. 224 (1897), is an 1897 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held that the United States lacked standing to challenge the validity of its issued patents “on the mere ground of error of judgment” in issuing them.  The United States had standing to seek to invalidate patents, however, on grounds of fraudulent procurement and also as a defense to a charge of patent infringement.  The decision operated for many decades as a bar to government efforts to seek invalidation of patents that it considered spurious until the Supreme Court limited "Bell Telephone", first to a limited extent in "United States v. United States Gypsum Co.", and then more broadly in "United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd."

Criminal law in the Marshall Court: The Marshall Court (1801–1835) heard forty-one criminal law cases, slightly more than one per year.  Among such cases are "United States v. Simms" (1803), "United States v. More" (1805), "Ex parte Bollman" (1807), "United States v. Hudson" (1812), "Cohens v. Virginia" (1821), "United States v. Perez" (1824), "Worcester v. Georgia" (1832), and "United States v. Wilson" (1833).

Girouard v. United States: Girouard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61 (1946) , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.  It concerned a pacifist applicant for naturalization who in the interview declared not to be willing to fight for the defense of the United States.  The case questioned a precedent set by "United States v. Schwimmer" in 1929 that denied an applicant entry to the United States because of her pacifist stance.  "Girouard v. United States" overturned that precedent by voting in favor of Girouard's religious freedom through allowing him to uphold his Seventh-day Adventist beliefs.

United States v. Eichman: United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated a federal law against flag desecration as violating of free speech under the First Amendment.  It was argued together with the case "United States v. Haggerty".  It built on the opinion handed down in the Court's decision the prior year in "Texas v. Johnson" (1989), which invalidated on First Amendment grounds a Texas state statute banning flag-burning.

United States v Cotroni: United States v Cotroni [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on extradition and freedom of movement under section 6 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms".  The Court found extradition violates section 6 but is a justified infringement under section 1 of the "Charter".  The case was decided with United States v El Zein.

United States v. Binion: United States v. Binion, 132 F. App'x 89 (8th Cir.  2005), is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit applied two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions ("United States v. Booker", 543 U.S. 220 (2005) and "United States v. Fanfan", 543 U.S. 220 (2005) in reviewing the sentencing decision by the trial court and upheld by the Federal District Court for the Eastern District.

United States v. Davis (2014): United States v. Quartavious Davis is a United States federal legal case that challenged the use in a criminal trial of location data obtained without a search warrant from MetroPCS, a cell phone service provider.  Mobile phone tracking data had helped place the defendant in this case at the scene of several crimes, for which he was convicted.  The defendant appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which found the warrantless data collection had violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but declined to order a new trial because the evidence was collected in good faith.  The Eleventh Circuit has since vacated this decision pending a rehearing by the Eleventh Circuit en banc.  United States v. Davis, 573 Fed.  Appx.  925 (11th Cir.  2014).  On 5th May 2015, the en banc order upheld the use of the information.  On 9th Nov 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear this case on appeal.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.  This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Schmerber v. California: Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body.  Until "Schmerber", the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects.  Likewise, the Court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution.

Supporting paragraphs: United States v. Wong Kim Ark Schmerber v. California
Answer: United States v. Wong Kim Ark,