Question: Between Hernandez v. Texas and Slaughter-House Cases which case is more relevant to state citizenship?

Context articles: Snowden v. Hughes
Freedom of movement under United States law
Transnational citizenship
Hernandez v. Texas
Hernandez v. Commissioner
Afroyim v. Rusk
James DeAnda
Hernandez v. New York
Slaughter-House Cases
Jus sanguinis

Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not protect rights pertinent solely to state citizenship, and that the equal protection clause does not protect citizens from unfair applications of fair state laws where purposeful discrimination is absent.
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).
Transnational citizenship redefines traditional notions of citizenship and replaces an individual's singular national loyalties with the ability to belong to multiple nation states, as made visible in the political, cultural, social and economic realms.
 Unlike national citizenship, where individuals interact in such capacities with one sovereign state, transnational citizenship transcends pre-established territorial boundaries in order to create a modern meaning of "belonging" in an increasingly globalized society.
 Additionally, while preconceived notions of citizenship are often divided between national, social and individual forms of identity, all three categories serve to contribute to the meaning of transnational citizenship.
 State citizenship can be defined as an individual establishing their sense of belonging by espousing to the liberal-democratic values of the state in the public sphere.
 When applied to transnational citizenship, an individual would have the opportunity to be civically engaged in multiple societies.
 A Dominican politician who lives in Santo Domingo yet canvasses in a highly dense Dominican American population in Boston, Massachusetts for external votes is an example of a transnational citizens functioning politically between two states.
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.
Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680 (1989), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court relating to the Internal Revenue Code §170 charitable contribution deduction.
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) , is a major United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily.
 The U.S. government had attempted to revoke the citizenship of Beys Afroyim, a man born in Poland, because he had cast a vote in an Israeli election after becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen.
 The Supreme Court decided that Afroyim's right to retain his citizenship was guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
 In so doing, the Court struck down a federal law mandating loss of U.S. citizenship for voting in a foreign election—thereby overruling one of its own precedents, "Perez v. Brownell" (1958), in which it had upheld loss of citizenship under similar circumstances less than a decade earlier.
James DeAnda (August 21, 1925 – September 7, 2006) was an American attorney and United States federal judge, noted for his activities in defense of Hispanic civil rights, particularly as a plaintiff's attorney in Hernandez v. Texas.
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that a prosecutor may dismiss jurors who are bilingual in Spanish and English from juries that will consider Spanish-language testimony.
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.
Jus sanguinis (Latin: "right of blood" ) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state.
 Children at birth may automatically be citizens if their parents have state citizenship or national identities of ethnic, cultural, or other origins.
 Citizenship can also apply to children whose parents belong to a diaspora and were not themselves citizens of the state conferring citizenship.
 This principle contrasts with "jus soli" (Latin: "right of soil").