Question: Which case Katzenbach v. McClung or Gitlow v. New York was heard first ?

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).

Katzenbach v. McClung: Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce.

Brandenburg v. Ohio: Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."  Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.  In the process, "Whitney v. California" (1927) was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on "Schenck v. United States" (1919), "Abrams v. United States" (1919), "Gitlow v. New York" (1925), and "Dennis v. United States" (1951).

Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy: Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy, 162 U.S. 283 (1896), was the first litigation of aboriginal title in the United States by a tribal plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the United States since "Cherokee Nation v. Georgia" (1831).  It was the first such litigation by an indigenous plaintiff since "Fellows v. Blacksmith" (1857) and its companion case of "New York ex rel.  Cutler v. Dibble" (1858).  The New York courts held that the 1788 Phelps and Gorham Purchase did not violate the Nonintercourse Act, one of the provisions of which prohibits purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government, and that (even if it did) the Seneca Nation of New York was barred by the state statute of limitations from challenging the transfer of title.  The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the merits of lower court ruling because of the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine.

Gitlow v. New York: Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the reach of certain limitations on federal government authority set forth in the First Amendment—specifically the provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press—to the governments of the individual states.  It was one of a series of Supreme Court cases that defined the scope of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and established the standard to which a state or the federal government would be held when it criminalized speech or writing.

New York City Parents Union: The New York City Parents Union is a student rights advocacy organization, formed in 2011 by President Mona Davids.  According to its mission statement, the group seeks to make high-quality public education available to the children of New York, through "empowering parents, supporting school choice, advocacy, legislation and lawsuits."  It has been at the center of a number of high-profile lawsuits, most notably the case now known as "Davids v. New York", which was closely patterned after a similar case, "Vergara v. California".  "Davids v. New York" was eventually consolidated with a similar suit known as "Wright v. New York" that fellow school reformer Campbell Brown, head of Partnership for Educational Justice, had announced she would file on behalf of seven New York parents.  The "Davids v. New York" lawsuit aims to invalidate New York State teacher-tenure laws, but has since stalled after a California Court of Appeal ruled in April 2016 that "plaintiffs failed to establish that the state's tenure laws violate students' constitutional rights to equal protection".

Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel: Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act (Coal Act) constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking of property which required the Act to be invalidated.  The import of this decision is that it was made in the context of a purely economic regulation.  The plurality examines the statute and its resultant harm as an ad hoc factual inquiry based on factors delineated in Penn Central such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action. ("Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City"), The decision thereby moved beyond the traditional notions of equal protection which had been applied to economic regulation since the time of ("Lochner v. New York"), requiring extreme deference to Congress, and applied a regulatory takings analysis to the problem resulting in a much less deferential result.  While the plurality recognizes that this is not a traditional takings case where the government appropriates private property for public use, they also state this is the type of case where the "Armstrong Principle" of preventing the government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.  ("Armstrong v. United States", 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960)) However, while the plurality seems to invalidate this particular law on takings grounds, the concurrences and the dissents warn of such an analysis as this should actually be examined under substantive due process or ex post facto theories.

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg: Zubulake v. UBS Warburg is a case heard between 2003 and 2005 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Judge Shira Scheindlin, presiding over the case, issued a series of groundbreaking opinions in the field of electronic discovery.  Plaintiff Laura Zubulake filed suit against her former employer UBS, alleging gender discrimination, failure to promote, and retaliation.  Judge Shira Scheindlin's rulings comprise some of the most often cited in the area of electronic discovery, and were made prior to the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The relevant opinions in the field are known as Zubulake I, Zubulake III, Zubulake IV, and Zubulake V.  In 2012, the plaintiff published a book about her e-discovery experiences titled "Zubulake's e-Discovery: The Untold Story of my Quest for Justice."

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.: Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), is a leading case in American tort law on the question of liability to an unforeseeable plaintiff.  The case was heard by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court in New York; its opinion was written by Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo, a leading figure in the development of American common law and later a United States Supreme Court justice.

Isabel González: Isabel González (May 2, 1882 – June 11, 1971) was a Puerto Rican activist who helped pave the way for Puerto Ricans to be given United States citizenship.  As a young unwed pregnant woman, González had her plans to find and marry the father of her unborn child derailed by the United States Treasury Department when she was excluded as an alien "likely to become a public charge" upon her arrival in New York City.  González challenged the Government of the United States in the groundbreaking case "Gonzales v. Williams" (192 U.S. 1 (1904)).  Officially the case was known as "Isabella Gonzales, Appellant, v. William Williams, United States Commissioner of Immigration at the Port of New York" No. 225, argued December 4, 7, 1903, and decided January 4, 1904.  Her case was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, filed February 27, 1903, after also having her Writ of Habeas Corpus (HC.  1-187) dismissed.  Her Supreme Court case is the first time that the Court confronted the citizenship status of inhabitants of territories acquired by the United States.  González actively pursued the cause of U.S. citizenship for all Puerto Ricans by writing letters published in "The New York Times".

Supporting paragraphs: Katzenbach v. McClung Gitlow v. New York
Answer: Gitlow v. New York,