Question: Are Rasul v. Bush and United States v. Windsor both US Supreme Court cases?

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.

United States v. Windsor: United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No.  12-307 ), is a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.  In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

Same-sex marriage in the Sixth Circuit: On April 28, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments for "Obergefell v. Hodges" (Ohio), which was consolidated with three other same-sex marriage cases from the other states in the Sixth Circuit: "Tanco v. Haslam" (Tennessee), "DeBoer v. Snyder" (Michigan), "Bourke v. Beshear" (Kentucky).  On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's decision, paving the way for same-sex marriage to become legal in those states, and setting a precedent for the entire nation.  All four states complied with the ruling the same day it was issued before the mandate was actually issued.  Every state in the circuit had a district court ruling against their states' ban, but they were eventually stayed pending appeal.  The Sixth Circuit consists of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.  On August 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments for same-sex marriage cases from each state within the circuit.  On November 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit in a split 2-1 decision, upheld the states' same-sex marriage bans, reversing the district courts' rulings that struck them down.  The Sixth Circuit was the first and only circuit court since the landmark ruling "United States v. Windsor" to uphold the constitutionality of states' same-sex marriage bans which caused a circuit split.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Supporting paragraphs: Rasul v. Bush United States v. Windsor
Answer: yes