Question: Lochner v. New York and New York v. Ferber where both handled by who?

full_context: Document 1: Lochner (disambiguation): Lochner v. New York was a court case.
Document 2: Street v. New York: Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a New York state law making it a crime "publicly [to] mutilate, deface, defile, or defy, trample upon, or cast contempt upon either by words or act [any flag of the United States]" was, in part, unconstitutional because it prohibited "speech" against the flag. The Court left for a later day the question of whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional to prohibit, without reference to the utterance of words, the burning of the flag (see "Texas v. Johnson" and "United States v. Eichman").
Document 3: Mugler v. Kansas: Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887) , was an important United States Supreme Court case in which the 8–1 opinion of Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan and the lone partial dissent by Associate Justice Stephen Johnson Field laid the foundation for the Supreme Court's later acceptance and defense during the Lochner era of Justice Field's theory of economic substantive due process under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Document 4: 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.
Document 5: Lockhart v. United States (2016): Lockhart v. United States, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) , is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the interpretation of a federal statute. 18 USC §2252(b)(2) states that a defendant convicted of possessing child pornography is subject to a mandatory 10 year minimum prison sentence if they have "a prior conviction...under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward." Avondale Lockhart, convicted of possession of child pornography, had a prior conviction for sexual abuse of his 53-year-old girlfriend under New York State law. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison under §2252(b)(2). He appealed claiming that the qualifier "involving a minor or ward" applies to the whole series, making his prior conviction not trigger the sentence enhancement. In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that the phrase only modifies the final item in the series, upholding the 10 year minimum sentence imposed on Lockhart.
Document 6: New York v. Ferber: New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) , is a precedential decision given by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously that the First Amendment right to free speech did not forbid states from banning the sale of material depicting children engaged in sexual activity, even if the material was not obscene.
Document 7: 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.
Document 8: New York Times Co. v. United States: New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the First Amendment. The ruling made it possible for "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post" newspapers to publish the then-classified "Pentagon Papers" without risk of government censorship or punishment.
Document 9: 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.
Document 10: John Feldmeier: John Phillip Feldmeier is an attorney with the Cincinnati, Ohio law firm of Sirkin, Kinsley, & Nazzarine (a spin-off of the now-dissolved Sirkin, Pinales, & Schwartz LLP), where he practices in the areas of criminal defense and first amendment litigation. He served as co-counsel for the Free Speech Coalition, along with H. Louis Sirkin and Laura A. Abrams, in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, in which the United States Supreme Court struck down the "appears to be a minor" and "conveys the impression of a minor" provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. Feldmeier represented Beth Lewis in the Ohio Supreme Court case concerning attorney–client privilege in connection to the Erica Baker missing child investigation. In 2003, he testified before the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security regarding the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2003, part of the PROTECT Act of 2003. In 2007, Feldmeier authored a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Free Speech Coalition in the U.S. v Williams case, the contents of which were the subject of much of the focus of the opinions of both the majority and dissent.
Document 11: Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.: Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) , is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the First Amendment and the ability of the government to outlaw certain forms of expressive conduct. It ruled that the state has the constitutional authority to ban public nudity, even as part of expressive conduct such as dancing, because it furthers a substantial government interest in protecting the morality and order of society. This case is perhaps best summarized by a sentence in Justice Souter's concurring opinion, which is often paraphrased as "Nudity itself is not inherently expressive conduct."
Document 12: Slaughter-House Cases: The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) , was the first United States Supreme Court interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment which had recently been enacted. It was a pivotal case in early civil rights law and held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the privileges or immunities of citizenship of the United States, not privileges and immunities of citizenship of a state. However, federal rights of citizenship were then few, such as the right to travel between states and to use navigable rivers; the amendment did not protect the far broader range of rights covered by state citizenship. In effect, the amendment was interpreted to convey limited protection pertinent to a small minority of rights.
Document 13: Osborne v. Ohio: Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990) , is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment allows states to outlaw the mere possession, as distinct from the distribution, of child pornography. In so doing, the Court extended the holding of "New York v. Ferber", 458 U.S. 747 (1982) , which had upheld laws banning the distribution of child pornography against a similar First Amendment challenge, and distinguished "Stanley v. Georgia", 394 U.S. 557 (1969) , which had struck down a Georgia law forbidding the possession of pornography by adults in their own homes. The Court also determined that the Ohio law at issue was not overbroad, relying on a narrowing interpretation of the law the Ohio Supreme Court had adopted in prior proceedings in the case. However, because it was unclear whether the State had proved all the elements of the crime, the Court ordered a new trial.
Document 14: Civil Rights Cases: The Civil Rights Cases, 109 US 3 (1883) were a group of five US Supreme Court constitutional law cases. Against the famous dissent of Justice Harlan, a majority held the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional, because Congress lacked authority to regulate private affairs under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the Thirteenth Amendment "merely abolishes slavery". The Civil Rights Act of 1875 had banned race discrimination in access to services offered to the public. The decision was effectively reversed in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court from 1937, and finally by legislation under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Document 15: 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).
ground_truth: United States Supreme Court