Question: Which Supreme Court case was ruled on first; Glossip v. Gross or New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.?

Context paragraphs:
Glossip v. Gross: Glossip v. Gross, No.  14-7955, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 5–4, that lethal injections using midazolam do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The Court found that condemned prisoners can only challenge their method of execution after providing a known and available alternative method.

New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.: New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 US 552 (1938) was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision, which affects US labor law, safeguarding a right to boycott and in the struggle by African Americans against discriminatory hiring practices.

Allgeyer v. Louisiana: Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which a unanimous court struck down a Louisiana statute for violating an individual's liberty of contract.  It was the first case in which the Supreme Court interpreted the word "liberty" in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to mean economic liberty.  The decision marked the beginning of the infamous "Lochner" era, during which the Supreme Court struck many state regulations for infringing on an individual's right to contract.  The "Lochner" era lasted forty years, until "West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish" was decided in 1937.

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.

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).

Town of Greece v. Galloway: Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. ___ (2014) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court decided that the Town of Greece, New York may permit volunteer chaplains to open each legislative session with a prayer.  The plaintiffs were Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.  They argue that the prayers violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the town, and on May 20, 2013 the Supreme Court agreed to rule on the issue.  On May 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Town of Greece, and that the town's practice of beginning legislative sessions with prayers does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Same-sex marriage by Circuit Court: Prior to the landmark ruling "United States v. Windsor", the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage was upheld by the Eighth Circuit in "Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning".  After the "Windsor" ruling, many same-sex marriage bans were struck down by lower courts.  The Tenth, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth circuits all ruled that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.  The cases that made it to these circuit courts originated in district courts which for the most part also struck down same-sex marriage bans.  When a circuit court struck down a state's same-sex marriage ban, it did not directly strike down same-sex marriage bans in other states within the circuit.  However, it paved the way for same-sex marriage bans to be struck down in the entire circuit due to the precedent it set for district courts within the circuit to follow.  In some states, same-sex marriage was already legal before a federal circuit court ruled on the matter.  The Sixth Circuit ruled that same-sex marriage bans were not unconstitutional and reversed the district court rulings that struck down same-sex marriage bans.  Since this was the only circuit court to rule this way post-"Windsor", this created a circuit split which ultimately led to the Supreme Court of the United States deciding to resolve the issue once and for all.  They ruled that same-sex marriage bans violate the constitution in the landmark ruling "Obergefell v. Hodges" which was the consolidated case that covered each state in the Sixth Circuit.  Some circuit courts have not ruled on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans at all.  Many circuit courts had pending same-sex marriage cases, but decided to hold off on litigation until the Supreme Court ruled on the matter.

Mitchel v Reynolds: Mitchel v. Reynolds is a landmark decision in the history of the law of restraint of trade.  It is generally cited for establishing the principle that reasonable restraints of trade, unlike unreasonable restraints of trade, are permissible and therefore enforceable and not a basis for civil or criminal liability.  It is largely the basis in US antitrust law for the "rule of reason."  William Howard Taft, then Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, later US President and then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, quoted "Mitchel" extensively when he first developed the antitrust rule-of-reason doctrine in "United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co.", which was affirmed in 1899 by the Supreme Court.  The doctrine also played a major role in the 1911 Supreme Court case "Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States" 221 U.S. 1 (1911).

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.

Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.: Doyle v. Mitchell Bros.  Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918), was a United States Supreme Court case defining gross income.  The case held that gross income includes the gain on sale of assets, "i.e.", the proceeds less cost basis.  An alternative theory that gross income should be the gross proceeds, and the cost basis should be allowed as a deduction, was rejected by the Court.  The Court also held that the harvesting of timber was not an income recognition event until the timber was sold.

Supporting paragraphs: Glossip v. Gross New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.
Answer: New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.