Question: Lochner v. New York and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris were both cases decided by what high court?

Context paragraphs:
Atkyns' Reports: Reports of Cases argued and determined in the High Court of Chancery, in the time of Lord Hardwicke, from 1737 to 1754 is the title of a collection of nominate reports, by John Tracy Atkyns, of cases decided by the Court of Chancery between approximately 1736 and 1755.  For the purpose of citation their name may be abbreviated to "Atk".  They are in three volumes.  They are reprinted in volume 26 of the English Reports.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002) , was a 5-4 decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld an Ohio program that used school vouchers.  The Court decided that the program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment even if the vouchers could be used for private, religious schools.

Barnardiston's Chancery Reports: Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery, 13 and 14 Geo.  II.  from April 25, 1740, to May 9, 1741 is the title of a collection of nominate reports, by Thomas Barnardiston, of cases decided by the Court of Chancery, between approximately 1740 and 1741.  For the purpose of citation, their name may be abbreviated to "Barn C".  They are reprinted in volume 27 of the English Reports.

Lochner era: The "Lochner" era is a period in American legal history from 1897 to 1937 in which the Supreme Court of the United States is said to have made it a common practice "to strike down economic regulations adopted by a State based on the Court’s own notions of the most appropriate means for the State to implement its considered policies," by using its interpretation of substantive due process to strike down laws held to be infringing on economic liberty or private contract rights.  The era takes its name from a 1905 case, "Lochner v. New York".  The beginning of the era is usually marked earlier, with the Court's decision in "Allgeyer v. Louisiana" (1897), and its end marked forty years later in the case of "West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish" (1937), which overturned an earlier "Lochner"-era decision.

Teo Soh Lung v Minister for Home Affairs: Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs is the name of two cases of the Singapore courts, a High Court decision delivered in 1989 and the 1990 judgment in the appeal from that decision to the Court of Appeal.  The cases were concerned with the constitutionality of amendments made to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and the Internal Security Act ("ISA") in 1989.  The latter statute authorizes detention without trial on security grounds.  These amendments had the effect of changing the law on judicial review of executive discretion under the ISA by re-establishing the subjective test enunciated in the 1971 High Court decision "Lee Mau Seng v. Minister for Home Affairs" which had been overruled in 1988 by "Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs", and limiting the right of judicial review to ensuring compliance with procedures specified in the ISA.  In other words, the amendments were intended to render the exercise of power by the President and the Minister for Home Affairs under the ISA to detain persons without trial not justiciable by the courts.  Both the High Court and Court of Appeal found that these amendments were constitutional because Parliament had done nothing more than enact the rule of law relating to the law applicable to judicial review.  Thus, the amendments validly operated to deprive the applicant Teo Soh Lung of the ability to apply to the courts for judicial review.

List of Supreme Court of Judicature cases: This is a chronological list of notable cases decided by the Senior Courts of England and Wales – that is, cases from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Court of Appeal of England and Wales, and Crown Court.

Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW): Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW), and Flint v Webb, were the last of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer which had resulted in conflict between the High Court and the Privy Council.  The two cases were heard together, however two separate judgments were issued with "Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW)" addressing the substantive issues, and "Flint v Webb" addressing the applications for a certificate to appeal to the Privy Council.  The judgement of Griffith CJ in "Flint v Webb" suggested two ways in which that conflict could be resolved.  Both suggestions were adopted by the Commonwealth Parliament by legislation that permitted the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer, and gave the High Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction on such constitutional questions.  The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 "Engineers' case".

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.

Lochner v. New York: Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905) was a landmark US labor law case in the US Supreme Court, holding that limits to working time violated the Fourteenth Amendment.  This decision has since been overturned.

Ambler's Reports: Reports of cases in the High Court of Chancery, with some few in other courts, from 1737 to 1783 is the title of a collection of nominate reports, by Charles Ambler, of cases decided by the Court of Chancery between approximately 1737 and 1784.  For the purpose of citation their name may be abbreviated to "Amb".  They are reprinted in volume 27 of the English Reports.

Supporting paragraphs: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris Lochner v. New York
Answer: US Supreme Court