Question: Texas v. White and United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. were argued in what court?

full_context: Document 1: United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.: United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936), was a United States Supreme Court case involving principles of both governmental regulation of business and the supremacy of the executive branch of the federal government to conduct foreign affairs. The Supreme Court concluded not only that foreign affairs power was vested in the national government as a whole but also that the President of the United States had "plenary" powers in the foreign affairs field that were not dependent upon congressional delegation.
Document 2: Supremacy Clause: The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law. In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain national acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with national law. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them." A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, at least when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself. No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole American political structure.
Document 3: Chy Lung v. Freeman: Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876) was a United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that the power to set rules surrounding immigration, and to manage foreign relations, rested with the United States Federal Government, rather than with the states. The case has been cited in other Supreme Court cases related to government authority on matters relating to immigration policy and immigration enforcement, most recently in "Arizona v. United States" (2012).
Document 4: War Powers Resolution: The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
Document 5: Dred Scott v. Sandford: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) , also known simply as the Dred Scott case, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law and constitutional law. It held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves", whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court, and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved man of "the negro African race" who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott's request. The decision was only the second time that the Supreme Court had ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.
Document 6: Texas secession movements: Texas secession movements principally focus on the secession of Texas during the American Civil War and the activities of organizations that have existed since the 1990s. The United States Constitution does not address secession of states and the issue was a topic of debate from after the Revolutionary War up until the Civil War, when the Supreme Court ruled, in "Texas v. White," that states cannot secede. Texas claimed to be a sovereign state for nine years prior to the negotiated annexation with the United States, but its claim was not recognized by Mexico, nor did Texas actually control the entirety of its claimed territory. This history has affected the state's politics ever since, including its standing in the Confederacy in the Civil War to education and even tourism in the 20th century. Modern secession efforts have existed in the state at least since the 1990s, focusing first on the Republic of Texas organization founded by Richard Lance McLaren and later on the Texas Nationalist Movement headed by Daniel Miller.
Document 7: Texas v. White: Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. The state filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court, which, under the United States Constitution, retains original jurisdiction on certain cases in which a state is a party.
Document 8: Legal Tender Cases: The Legal Tender Cases were a series of United States Supreme Court cases in the latter part of the nineteenth century that affirmed the constitutionality of paper money. In the 1869 case of "Hepburn v. Griswold", the Court had held that declaring paper notes to be legal tender in payment of debts existing prior to the Legal Tender Act of 1862 violated the United States Constitution. In the "Legal Tender Cases", the Court overruled "Hepburn", beginning with "Knox v. Lee" and "Parker v. Davis" in 1871, and then "Juilliard v. Greenman" in 1884.
Document 9: Wickard v. Filburn: Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. It was a test case that was heard shortly after the United States had entered World War II. The goal of the business interests that financed the legal challenge all the way to the Supreme Court was to convince the Court to declare the entire federal crop support program unconstitutional and thereby end it. The Filburn decision supported what Congress had done, and said the Constitution enabled congressional regulation that included economic activity that was only indirectly related to interstate commerce.
Document 10: Gibbons v. Ogden: Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, encompassed the power to regulate navigation. The case was argued by some of America's most admired and capable attorneys at the time. Exiled Irish patriot Thomas Addis Emmet and Thomas J. Oakley argued for Ogden, while U.S. Attorney General William Wirt and Daniel Webster argued for Gibbons.
Document 11: Virginia v. West Virginia (1911): Virginia v. West Virginia, 220 U.S. 1 (1911) , is a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the state of West Virginia was bound by its constitution to pay one-third of the outstanding debt of the commonwealth of Virginia as of January 1, 1861. In its ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that the geographic narrowness of the port and road improvements made by Virginia (most of which occurred outside West Virginia's current borders) were incurred by the people of the entire state and did not discharge West Virginia's duty to pay. The Court also held that Virginia's attempts to discharge its debts while its negotiations with West Virginia continued did not absolve West Virginia of its duty to pay. Although both states had already agreed on the amount to be paid, the Court ordered them to negotiate over interest computation.
Document 12: Ex parte Milligan: Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866) , was a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled the application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional. In this particular case the Court was unwilling to give President Abraham Lincoln's administration the power of military commission jurisdiction, part of the administration's controversial plan to deal with Union dissenters during the American Civil War. Justice David Davis, who delivered the majority opinion, stated that "martial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and confined martial law to areas of "military operations, where war really prevails," and when it was a necessity to provide a substitute for a civil authority that had been overthrown. Chief Justice Chase and three associate justices filed a separate opinion concurring with the majority in the judgment, but asserted that Congress had the power to authorize a military commission, although it had not done so in Milligan's case.
Document 13: Commission on Foreign Economic Policy: The U.S. President's Commission on Foreign Economic Policy (the Randall Commission) was established on August 7, 1953 by Public Law 215 entitled "Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1953" which extended the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951 for one year. On April 7, 1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower requested that Congress extend for one year the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, a measure which had originally been passed in 1934. Under this act and its subsequent extensions, the President was authorized to negotiate agreements with other countries for tariff reduction. In his message of April 7, the President called for a commission to study U.S. foreign economic policy in general. Section 301 of this Act provided for a bipartisan commission which consisted of seventeen members: seven appointed by the President, five appointed from the Senate by the Vice President, and five from the United States House of Representatives by the Speaker. President Eisenhower appointed Clarence B. Randall, Chairman of the Board of Inland Steel Company, as Chairman of the Commission. The Commission was directed to examine and report on the subjects of international trade, foreign economic policy, and the trade aspects of national security and total foreign policy. It was to recommend appropriate policies, measures, and practices, based on its findings, in a report to Congress.
Document 14: Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock: Texas Monthly v. Bullock 489 U.S. 1 (1989) was a case brought before the US Supreme Court in November 1988. The case (initiated by the publishers of "Texas Monthly", a well-known general-interest magazine in Texas) was to test the legality of a Texas statute that exempted religious publications from paying state sales tax.
Document 15: Hernandez v. Texas: Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954), was a landmark case, "the first and only Mexican-American civil-rights case heard and decided by the United States Supreme Court during the post-World War II period." In a unanimous ruling, the court held that Mexican Americans and all other nationality groups in the United States had equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling was written by Justice Earl Warren. This was the first case in which Mexican-American lawyers had appeared before the US Supreme Court.
ground_truth: The Supreme Court