Question: Which US Supreme Court case was argued first, Strickland v. Washington or Garner v. Louisiana?

Context articles: Rodríguez v. Popular Democratic Party
Yamataya v. Fisher
Roberts v. City of Boston
Stephen Halbrook
Garner v. Louisiana
Washington v. Recuenco
Strickland v. Washington
Allgeyer v. Louisiana
Aptheker v. Secretary of State
United States v. Hamilton

Rodríguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1 (1982) , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States heard on appeal from the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico whether Puerto Rico may by statute vest in a political party the power to fill an interim vacancy in the Puerto Rico Legislature.
 The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico held that such a procedure did not violate the United States Constitution, and the US Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico.
 The case was of some interest to close followers of the Court as it featured the one and only return of former associate justice, Abe Fortas, now in private practice, at oral argument on behalf of the appellee.
Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) , popularly known as the Japanese Immigrant Case, is a US Supreme Court case on the US government's power to exclude and deport certain classes of alien immigrants under the Immigration Act of 1891.
 The Supreme Court held that the courts may not interfere with a pending deportation unless the administrative hearing was unfair.
 However, deportation procedures are subject to constitutional scrutiny, under the Due Process Clause.
Roberts v. Boston, 59 Mass. (5 Cush.)
 198 (1850), was a court case seeking to end racial discrimination in Boston public schools.
 The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of Boston, finding no constitutional basis for the suit.
 The case was later cited by the US Supreme Court in "Plessy v. Ferguson", which established the "separate but equal" standard.
Stephen P. Halbrook is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and an author and lawyer known for his litigation on behalf of the National Rifle Association.
 He has written extensively about the original meanings of the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment (the latter as applied to Second Amendment rights).
 He has argued and won three cases before the US Supreme Court: "Printz v. United States", "United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company", and "Castillo v. United States".
 He has also written briefs in many other cases, including the Supreme Court cases "Small v. United States" (pertaining to the Gun Control Act of 1968) and "McDonald v. Chicago".
 In "District of Columbia v. Heller", he wrote a brief on behalf of the majority of both houses of Congress.
 More broadly, his decades of research on the Second Amendment contributed to the intellectual foundation of the "Heller" decision.
 He has written many books and articles on the topic of gun control, some of which have been cited in Supreme Court opinions ("Heller", "McDonald", "Printz v. United States").
 He has testified before congress on multiple occasions.
 Halbrook’s most important scholarly contribution, however, was the book "That Every Man Be Armed", originally published in 1986.
 The book was the most thorough analysis of the legal history and original intent of the Second Amendment.
Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157 (1961), was a pivotal civil rights case argued by Thurgood Marshall before the Supreme Court.
 On December 11, 1961, the court unanimously ruled that Louisiana could not convict peaceful sit-in protesters who refused to leave dining establishments under the state's "disturbing the peace" laws.
Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (2006), is the United States Supreme Court case of Recuenco, a man who was convicted of second-degree assault after he threatened his wife with a handgun, and subsequently sentenced by the Washington Supreme Court based not only on the conviction, but based on Recuenco's use of a handgun, charged as assault with a deadly weapon.
 His sentencing included a three-year enhancement, a standard based on his being armed with a firearm, which is greater than the one-year enhancement he would have received for assault with a deadly weapon.
 As the jury in the case had not found that Recuenco was armed with a firearm, he argued that the sentencing enhancement violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.
 At the Supreme Court, the State conceded that a Blakely error had occurred, but argued that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
 The Court held in a 7-2 opinion that a Blakely error could be considered harmless.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.
Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which a unanimous court struck down a Louisiana statute for violating an individual's liberty of contract.
 It was the first case in which the Supreme Court interpreted the word "liberty" in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to mean economic liberty.
 The decision marked the beginning of the infamous "Lochner" era, during which the Supreme Court struck many state regulations for infringing on an individual's right to contract.
 The "Lochner" era lasted forty years, until "West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish" was decided in 1937.
Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case on the right to travel and passport restrictions as they relate to Fifth Amendment due process rights and First Amendment free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association rights.
 It is the first case in which the US Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of personal restrictions on the right to travel abroad.
United States v. Hamilton, 3 U.S. 17 (1795) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which a defendant committed on a charge of treason was released on bail, despite having been imprisoned upon a warrant of committal by a district court judge.
 The Judiciary Act of 1789 stated that "upon all arrests in criminal cases, bail shall be admitted, except where the punishment may be death, in which cases it shall not be admitted but by the supreme or a circuit court, or by a justice of the supreme court, or a judge of a district court, who shall exercise their discretion therein, regarding the nature and circumstances of the offence, and of the evidence, and the usages of law."
 Ordinarily, habeas corpus was used to release prisoners held by the judgment of the executive, but not for those who commitment had been authorized by a court order.
 Hamilton's attorney argued that the district court judge did not hold a hearing before issuing a warrant for his commitment to jail and that the affidavits alleging treasonous activity were weak, while the government urged that the Judiciary Act did not give the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to review the district court's decision unless there was new information or misconduct.
 The Supreme Court set bail, but without addressing either attorney's arguments.