Question: Which case dealt with the Fourteenth Amendment, Katz v. United States or Cantwell v. Connecticut?

Context paragraphs:
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.

Bolling v. Sharpe: Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which deals with civil rights, specifically, segregation in the District of Columbia's public schools.  Originally argued on December 10–11, 1952, a year before "Brown v. Board of Education", 347 U.S. 483 (1954), "Bolling" was reargued on December 8 and 9, 1953, and was unanimously decided on May 17, 1954, the same day as "Brown."  The "Bolling" decision was supplemented in 1955 with the second "Brown" opinion, which ordered desegregation "with all deliberate speed."  "Bolling" did not address school desegregation in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which applies only to the states, but held that school segregation was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  In "Bolling," the Court observed that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution lacked an Equal Protection Clause, as in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The Court held, however, that the concepts of Equal Protection and Due Process are not mutually exclusive.

Tuaua v. United States: Tuaua v. United States is a court case, originally filed in 2012, in which a group of American Samoans sued the State Department and the Obama administration.  They sued to force the government to recognize American Samoans' birthright citizenship, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that anyone born in the United States is automatically granted citizenship.  The case originated as a complaint filed in 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, by American Samoan and U.S. national Leneuoti Tuaua, who was prohibited from becoming a police officer in California because he was not a U.S. citizen.  The case was docketed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2013.  Briefs were filed on May 12, 2014, and an oral argument was made on February 9, 2015.  On June 5, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 3-0 to deny birthright citizenship to American Samoans, ruling that the guarantee of such citizenship to citizens in the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to unincorporated U.S. territories.  On February 1, 2016, attorneys filed a petition requesting that the Supreme Court of the United States review the Appeals Court's decision.

Gaffney v. Cummings: Gaffney v. Cummings (412 U.S. 735 (1973)) is a Supreme Court decision upholding statewide legislative apportionment plans for Connecticut.  The Court admitted that these plans entailed "substantial inequalities in the population of the representative districts."  It observed that "the States have made virtually no attempt to justify their failure 'to construct districts ... as nearly of equal population as is practicable."  It was a Fourteenth Amendment case.  At issue was whether the election districts had been gerrymandered in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Olmstead v. United States: Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928) , was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court reviewed whether the use of wiretapped private telephone conversations, obtained by federal agents without judicial approval and subsequently used as evidence, constituted a violation of the defendant’s rights provided by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.  In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment rights of the defendant were violated.  This decision was later overturned by "Katz v. United States" in 1967.

Slaughter-House Cases: The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) , was the first United States Supreme Court interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment which had recently been enacted.  It was a pivotal case in early civil rights law and held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the privileges or immunities of citizenship of the United States, not privileges and immunities of citizenship of a state.  However, federal rights of citizenship were then few, such as the right to travel between states and to use navigable rivers; the amendment did not protect the far broader range of rights covered by state citizenship.  In effect, the amendment was interpreted to convey limited protection pertinent to a small minority of rights.

Cantwell v. Connecticut: Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), was a United States Supreme Court decision that incorporated or applied to the states, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment's protection of religious free exercise.

Shafer v. South Carolina: Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U.S. 36 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001.  The case concerned the ability of a defendant to tell the jury that, absent a penalty of death, a penalty of life imprisonment would not permit early release of a prisoner on parole.  While the question had been decided in the case of "Simmons v. South Carolina", this case dealt with the extent of the ruling.

Wolf v. Colorado: Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6-3 that, while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures.  In Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914) the Court held that as a matter of judicial implication the exclusionary rule was enforceable in federal courts but not derived from the explicit requirements of the Fourth Amendment.  The Wolf Court decided not to incorporate the exclusionary rule as part of the Fourth Amendment in large part because the States which had rejected the Weeks Doctrine (the exclusionary rule) had not left the right to privacy without other means of protection (i.e. the States had their own rules to deter police officers from conducting warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures).  However, because most of the States' rules proved to be ineffective in deterrence, the Court overruled Wolf in Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961).  This landmark case made the exclusionary rule enforceable against the States through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the same extent that it applied against the federal government.

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".

Supporting paragraphs: Katz v. United States Cantwell v. Connecticut
Answer: Cantwell v. Connecticut