Question: Which US Supreme Court Case occurred first, Gravel v. United States or Schenck v. United States?

full_context: Document 1: Imminent lawless action: "Imminent lawless action" is a standard currently used that was established by the United States Supreme Court in "Brandenburg v. Ohio" (1969), for defining the limits of freedom of speech. "Brandenburg" clarified what constituted a "clear and present danger", the standard established by "Schenck v. United States" (1919), and overruled "Whitney v. California" (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in "Hess v. Indiana" (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time," and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.
Document 2: Shouting fire in a crowded theater: "Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case "Schenck v. United States" in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Document 3: United States v. Wheeler (1920): United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920), is an 8-to-1 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the Constitution alone did not grant the federal government the power to prosecute kidnappers, and only the states had the authority to punish a private citizen's unlawful violation of another's freedom of movement. The case was a landmark interpretation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution, and contained a classic legal statement of the right to travel which continues to undergird American jurisprudence.
Document 4: Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.: Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ( ; March 8, 1841 – March 6, 1935) was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932, and as Acting Chief Justice of the United States from January–February 1930. Noted for his long service, his concise and pithy opinions and his deference to the decisions of elected legislatures, he is one of the most widely cited United States Supreme Court justices in history, particularly for his "clear and present danger" opinion for a unanimous Court in the 1919 case of "Schenck v. United States", and is one of the most influential American common law judges, honored during his lifetime in Great Britain as well as the United States. Holmes retired from the Court at the age of 90 years, making him the oldest Justice in the Supreme Court's history. He also served as an Associate Justice and as Chief Justice on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and was Weld Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School, of which he was an alumnus.
Document 5: Parliamentary privilege in the United Kingdom: Parliamentary privilege in the United Kingdom is a legal immunity enjoyed by Members of the House of Commons and House of Lords designed to ensure that Parliamentarians are able to carry out their duties free from interference. The privileges are freedom of speech, freedom from arrest on civil matters, freedom of access to the sovereign and that 'the most favourable construction should be placed on all the Houses's proceedings'. Parliamentary privilege is however something that forms part of the law rather than putting Members of Parliament above the law. The doctrine of Parliamentary privilege was unsuccessfully used to try and prevent details of 2010 MPs expenses scandal from emerging. In recent years the doctrine of Parliamentary privilege has made headlines in relation to the arrest of Damian Green and several cases relating to super-injunctions such as "RJW & SJW v The Guardian newspaper & Person or Persons Unknown" ('Trafigura') and "CTB v News Group Newspapers" leading to calls to reform the law relating to privilege.
Document 6: United States v. Graham: United States v. Graham, 846 F. Supp. 2d 384 (D. Md. 2012), was a Maryland District Court case in which the Court held that historical cell site location data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Reacting to precedent established by the recent Supreme Court case "United States v. Jones" in conjunction with the application of the third party doctrine, Judge Richard D. Bennett, found that "information voluntarily disclosed to a third party ceases to enjoy Fourth Amendment protection" because that information no longer belongs to the consumer, but rather to the telecommunications company that handles the transmissions records. The historical cell site location data is then not subject to the privacy protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment standard of probable cause, but rather to the Stored Communications Act, which governs the voluntary or compelled disclosure of stored electronic communications records.
Document 7: Gravel v. United States: Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. In the case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privileges and immunities of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process.
Document 8: 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).
Document 9: Freedom of movement under United States law: Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in "Corfield v. Coryell," 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right. In "Paul v. Virginia," 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as "Ward v. Maryland," 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the "Slaughter-House Cases," 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and "United States v. Harris," 106 U.S. 629 (1883).
Document 10: Selective Draft Law Cases: Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918) , also known as the Selective Draft Law Cases, was a United States Supreme Court decision which upheld the Selective Service Act of 1917, and more generally, upheld conscription in the United States. The Supreme Court upheld that conscription did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, or the First Amendment's protection of freedom of conscience.
Document 11: Schenck v. United States: Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) , is a United States Supreme Court case concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed fliers to draft-age men, urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not alter the well-established law in cases where the attempt was made through expressions that would be protected in other circumstances. In this opinion, Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished.
Document 12: Espionage Act of 1917: The Espionage Act of 1917 is a United States federal law passed on June 15, 1917, shortly after the U.S. entry into World War I. It has been amended numerous times over the years. It was originally found in Title 50 of the U.S. Code (War) but is now found under Title 18, Crime. Specifically, it is 18 U.S.C. ch. 37 ( /792 § 792  et seq.)
Document 13: Charles Schenck: Charles T. Schenck was the secretary of the Socialist Party of America in Philadelphia during the First World War and involved in the 1919 Supreme Court case "Schenck v. United States".
Document 14: United States v. Guest: United States v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966) is a United States Supreme Court opinion, authored by Justice Potter Stewart, in which the court extended the protection of the 14th Amendment to citizens who suffer rights deprivations at the hands of private conspiracies, where there is minimal state participation in the conspiracy. The Court also held that there is Constitutional right to travel from state to state.
Document 15: Nixon v. General Services Administration: Nixon v. General Services Administration, 433 U.S 425 (1977), is a landmark court case concerning the principle of presidential privilege and whether the public is allowed to view a President’s “confidential documents”. The Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1974, ordered that the Administrator of General Services obtain President Richard Nixon’s presidential papers and tape recordings. In addition, the Act further ordered that government archivists seize these materials. These archivists would preserve the material deemed historic and return to former President Nixon the materials deemed as private. Furthermore, this Act stated that material that was preserved could be used in judicial hearings and proceedings. Immediately after this Act was enacted, Richard Nixon filed a lawsuit in a federal district court claiming that the Act violated the principle of separation of powers, the principle of presidential privilege, Nixon’s personal privacy, his First Amendment right of association, and further asserted that it amounted to a constitutionally prohibited Bill of Attainder.
ground_truth: Schenck v. United States