Question: Which court case came first, United States v. Jones or Marsh v. Chambers?

Context articles: Criminal law in the Marshall Court
Cheney v. United States District Court
United States v. Eichman
Baker v. Nelson
Criminal law in the Waite Court
Marsh v. Chambers
United States v. Jones (2012)
United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc.
United States v. Graham
United States v. Binion

The Marshall Court (1801–1835) heard forty-one criminal law cases, slightly more than one per year.
 Among such cases are "United States v. Simms" (1803), "United States v. More" (1805), "Ex parte Bollman" (1807), "United States v. Hudson" (1812), "Cohens v. Virginia" (1821), "United States v. Perez" (1824), "Worcester v. Georgia" (1832), and "United States v. Wilson" (1833).
Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004), was a 2004 United States Supreme Court case between Vice President Dick Cheney and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
 The case came as an appeal after the lower District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Cheney to disclose some of his records that would show how his National Energy Policy Development Group developed its recommendations.
 Cheney appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, but the Appeals Court rejected the appeal.
 In a 7–2 decision, the Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated a federal law against flag desecration as violating of free speech under the First Amendment.
 It was argued together with the case "United States v. Haggerty".
 It built on the opinion handed down in the Court's decision the prior year in "Texas v. Johnson" (1989), which invalidated on First Amendment grounds a Texas state statute banning flag-burning.
Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971) is a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a state law limiting marriage to persons of the opposite sex did not violate the U.S. Constitution.
 Baker appealed, and on October 10, 1972, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question."
 Because the case came to the U.S. Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not "certiorari"), the dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established "Baker v. Nelson" as precedent, though the extent of its precedential effect had been subject to debate.
 In May 2013, Minnesota legalized same-sex marriage and it took effect on August 1, 2013.
 Subsequently, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly overruled "Baker" in "Obergefell v. Hodges" making same-sex marriage legal nationwide.
During the tenure of Morrison Waite as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (March 4, 1874 through March 23, 1888), the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented volume and frequency of criminal cases.
 In just fourteen years, the Court heard 106 criminal cases, almost as many cases as the Supreme Court had heard in the period from its creation to the appointment of Waite as Chief Justice.
 Notable cases include "United States v. Cruikshank" (1875), "United States v. Reese" (1875), "Reynolds v. United States" (1878), "Wilkerson v. Utah" (1879), the "Trade-Mark Cases" (1879), "Strauder v. West Virginia" (1880), "Pace v. Alabama" (1883), "United States v. Harris" (1883), "Ex parte Crow Dog" (1883), "Hurtado v. California" (1884), "Clawson v. United States" (1885), "Yick Wo v. Hopkins" (1886), "United States v. Kagama" (1886), "Ker v. Illinois" (1886), and "Mugler v. Kansas" (1887).
Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), was a landmark court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that government funding for chaplains was constitutional because of the "unique history" of the United States.
 Three days before the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791, containing the Establishment clause, the federal legislature authorized hiring a chaplain for opening sessions with prayer.
United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct.
 945 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the three prong test for the issuance of a subpoena in "United States v. Nixon" does not apply to subpoenas issued by a grand jury.
 The Court concluded by stating that when a grand jury subpoena is challenged on relevancy grounds, the motion to quash must be denied “unless the district court determines that there is no reasonable possibility that the materials sought will produce information relevant to the grand jury's investigation.”
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.
United States v. Binion, 132 F. App'x 89 (8th Cir.
 2005), is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit applied two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions ("United States v. Booker", 543 U.S. 220 (2005) and "United States v. Fanfan", 543 U.S. 220 (2005) in reviewing the sentencing decision by the trial court and upheld by the Federal District Court for the Eastern District.