Question: Which case dealt with same-sex relations, Stenberg v. Carhart or Lawrence v. Texas?

Context paragraphs:
Lawrence v. Texas: Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court.  The Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas in a 6-3 decision and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory.  The Court, with a five-justice majority, overturned its previous ruling on the same issue in the 1986 case "Bowers v. Hardwick", where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute and did not find a constitutional protection of sexual privacy.

LGBT rights in Florida: LGBT people in the U.S. state of Florida face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents.  Same-sex sexual activity became legal in the state after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in "Lawrence v. Texas" on June 26, 2003, while same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since January 6, 2015.  Florida law does not address discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations.  However, several cities and counties, comprising about 55% of Florida's population, have enacted anti-discrimination ordinances.  Conversion therapy is also banned in a number of cities in the state, mainly in the Miami metropolitan area.

LeRoy Carhart: LeRoy Harrison Carhart (born 1941) is an American physician from New Jersey best known for performing abortions late in pregnancy.  He became famous for his participation in the Supreme Court cases "Stenberg v. Carhart" and "Gonzales v. Carhart", both of which dealt with intact dilation and extraction (colloquially known as "partial-birth abortion").  He was one of the four subjects of the 2013 documentary "After Tiller".

Schurz Communications, Inc. v. FCC: Schurz Communications v. Federal Communications Commission and the United States of America, 982 F. 2d 1043 (7th Cir.  1992), held in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, was argued on October 2, 1992 and decided on November 5, 1992.  The case dealt with the justification of the FCC's regulation of the way television networks are allowed to distribute and produce programs into syndication.  Judge Richard Posner was the Circuit Judge for the case.  This case challenged Syndication and Financial rules imposed in the 1970s, as broadcast television changed with the popularity of cable television, the rise of the FOX network, and the discrediting of the leverage theory.

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.

LGBT rights in the United States: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in the United States vary on a basis.  Since June 26, 2003, sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex as well as same-sex adolescents of a close age has been legal nationwide, pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in "Lawrence v. Texas".  As of June 26, 2015, all states license and recognize marriage between same-sex couples on account of the Supreme Court decision in "Obergefell v. Hodges".

Shafer v. South Carolina: Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U.S. 36 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001.  The case concerned the ability of a defendant to tell the jury that, absent a penalty of death, a penalty of life imprisonment would not permit early release of a prisoner on parole.  While the question had been decided in the case of "Simmons v. South Carolina", this case dealt with the extent of the ruling.

Stenberg v. Carhart: Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), is a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with a Nebraska law which made performing "partial-birth abortion" illegal, without regard for the health of the mother.  Nebraska physicians who performed the procedure contrary to the law were subject to having their medical licenses revoked.  The Court struck down the law, finding the Nebraska statute criminalizing "partial birth abortion[s]" violated the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, as interpreted in "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" and "Roe v. Wade".

Gunn v. Minton: Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. ___ (2013) , is a US patent law case.  The case dealt with the question of jurisdiction of patent law litigation in regard to attorney malpractice.  In a unanimous ruling, the United States Supreme Court decided that federal laws granting exclusive jurisdiction to cases involving patents does not preclude the ability of state courts to hear cases related to but not involving patents. <ref name="http://www.lexology.com"> </ref> The case was remanded to the Texas state courts for further proceedings. <ref name="http://supreme.justia.com"> </ref>

M/S R.M.D.C (Mysore) v. State of Mysore: M/S R.M.D.C (Mysore) v. State of Mysore, (AIR 1962 SC 594) was a judgment of the Supreme Court of India, dealing with constitutional law, where the Court utilized the doctrine of colourable legislation.  This is a landmark case on Centre-States relations in India, and was decided in favor of the erstwhile State of Mysore.  This case dealt with issues of conflict between the States and Union regarding legislative competence.  It further held that surrender of legislative competence by a state to the Union under article 252(2) of the Indian Constitution does not amount to surrender of powers of taxation.

Supporting paragraphs: Stenberg v. Carhart Lawrence v. Texas
Answer: Lawrence v. Texas