Question: Which was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution, Rasul v. Bush or Gravel v. United States?

Context paragraphs:
Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment is a 2007 non-fiction book by journalist Anthony Lewis about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The book starts by quoting the First Amendment, which prohibits the U.S. Congress from creating legislation which limits free speech or freedom of the press.  Lewis traces the evolution of civil liberties in the U.S. through key historical events.  He provides an overview of important free speech case law, including U.S. Supreme Court opinions in "Schenck v. United States" (1919), "Whitney v. California" (1927), "United States v. Schwimmer" (1929), "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" (1964), and "New York Times Co. v. United States" (1971).

Rasul v. Bush: Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004) , was landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that foreign nationals held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp could petition federal courts for writs of "habeas corpus" to review the legality of their detention.  The Court's 6–3 judgment on June 28, 2004, reversed a D.C. Circuit decision joined by Judge Merrick Garland, which had held that the judiciary has no jurisdiction to hear any petitions from foreign nationals held in Guantanamo Bay.

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.

Gravel v. United States: Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution.  In the case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privileges and immunities of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process.

Speech or Debate Clause: The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1).  The clause states that members of both Houses of Congress

Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri: Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011) , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held the public concern test limits Petition Clause claims by public employees.  More specifically state and local government employees may not sue their employers for retaliation under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment when they petition the government on matters of private concern.  To show that an employer interfered with rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, an employee must show that his speech related to a matter of public concern.  The court held that this test also applies when the employee invokes the Petition Clause.  The case is significant under the Petition Clause because 1.)  it recognized that lawsuits are “Petitions” under the First Amendment and 2.)  it explains that the Petition Clause and Speech Clause are not always coextensive, and leaves open the possibility that here may be additional claims under the Petition Clause which plaintiffs may invoke consistent with the purpose of that Clause.

Khalid al-Odah: Khalid al-Odah is the father of Guantanamo Bay detainee, Fawzi al-Odah, and the founder of the Kuwaiti Family Committee, a group established in 2004 to heighten global awareness of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.  Over the past five years, Khalid has waged legal, media, and public relations campaigns to promote the need for due process for the prisoners at Guantanamo.  In 2004, Khalid brought his son's case to the Supreme Court Rasul v. Bush/ al-Odah v. Bush.

Hutchinson v. Proxmire: Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that statements made by a Senator in newsletters and press releases were not protected by the Speech and debate clause.

Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co.: Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co., 27 U.S. (2 Pet.)  245 (1829), was a significant United States Supreme Court case regarding the definition of the Commerce Clause in Article 1 sec. 8, cl.  3 of the U.S. Constitution.  Willson, the owner of a sloop who was licensed under federal navigation laws, the Sally, broke through a dam that blocked his passage which was built by the Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. and had been authorized to do so by Delaware law.  The company brought a case against Willson, claiming Delaware authorized the building of the dam through a law which was passed under the police power of the state in order to clean up a health hazard and there was no legislation by Congress dealing with the same subject matter.  Willson claimed that the law authorizing the building of the dam was a violation of the commerce clause.  He believed he had a constitutional right to navigating coastal streams and Delaware's actions were motivated by private profits.  Chief Justice John Marshall affirmed the lower court's decision, that because no federal law dealt specifically with the situation, and the state law did not violate Congress' Dormant Commerce Clause power, the state law was valid.  He did note, however, that the dam might interfere with interstate commerce.

Combatant Status Review Tribunal: The Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) were a set of tribunals for confirming whether detainees held by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp had been correctly designated as "enemy combatants".  The CSRTs were established July 7, 2004 by order of U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz after U.S. Supreme Court rulings in "Hamdi v. Rumsfeld" and "Rasul v. Bush" and were coordinated through the Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants.

Supporting paragraphs: Rasul v. Bush Gravel v. United States
Answer: Gravel v. United States