Question: Did both Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Missouri v. Holland take place in the U.S.?

Context articles: Missouri v. Holland
Hickory Point Mall
Corporate personhood
Edgewood Mall
Hobby Lobby
Hobby Express
Plastilina
Taint (legal)
Hannah Clayson Smith
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

In Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), the United States Supreme Court held that protection of a State's quasi-sovereign right to regulate the taking of game is a sufficient jurisdictional basis, apart from any pecuniary interest, for a State to enjoin enforcement of an unconstitutional federal regulation, but that the federal government's implementation of the treaty at issue was constitutional, trumping state concerns about enumerated powers or abrogation of states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment.
 The case revolved around the constitutionality of implementing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.
 It is also notable for Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' reference to the idea of a living constitution.
Hickory Point Mall is an enclosed mall in Forsyth, Illinois.
 Opened in 1978, it features Bergner's, Kohl's, Von Maur, and Hobby Lobby as its anchor stores.
 The mall is managed by CBL & Associates Properties.
Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans).
 For example, corporations have the right to enter into contracts with other parties and to sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons.
 In a U.S. historical context, the phrase 'Corporate Personhood' refers to the ongoing legal debate over the extent to which rights traditionally associated with natural persons should also be afforded to corporations.
 In 1886 it was clear that the Supreme Court had accepted the argument that corporations were people and that "their money was protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment".
 Another example is that in "Kasky v. Nike, Inc." held that corporations maintain free speech, while in "Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc", the Court asserted that freedom of religion exempted Hobby Lobby from aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Edgewood Mall is a regional shopping mall located in McComb, Mississippi.
 Situated at the intersection of Interstate 55 and Veterans Boulevard, the mall is anchored by five department stores — JCPenney, Belk, Hobby Lobby, Marshall's, and Goody's — with Ashley Furniture Home Store as a junior anchor.
 The mall currently has more than 40 interior shops.
.
 A Walmart Supercenter is located next door and Lowe's is located across the boulevard.
 The mall also has area stores and restaurants that include: Piccadilly Cafeterias, McDonald's, First Bank, Blockbuster, Burger King, Ruby Tuesday, Pike County National Bank, BP Gas Station, China Buffet, Radio Shack, Walgreens, Holiday Inn Express, and the Kahalaf Plaza.
 On the other side of the I-55 is a B-Kwik Chevron/ Quiznos Subs, Arbys, Hampton Inn, Ramada Inn, Deerfield Inn, El Darado Mexican Restaurant, Legacy Ford Lincoln Mercury, and more too.
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a private for-profit, closely held corporation, and an American chain of retail arts and crafts stores based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, formerly called Hobby Lobby Creative Centers.
 The stores are managed by direct corporate hires.
Hobby Express is an American retailer that sells radio-controlled aircraft, helicopters, boats and related products through catalog and Internet sales, and operates a store in Tennessee.
 It was called Hobby Lobby International before changing its name in 2013 to avoid confusion with Hobby Lobby, an arts and crafts retailer embroiled in a controversial U.S. Supreme Court case.
Roma Plastilina is a brand of non-hardening modeling clay sold by Spanish company JOVI and its subsidiaries.
 JOVI Modeling Clay, Plastilina, is mainly composed of vegetable matter, making it lighter and giving 33% more volume.
 It is sold in stores such as Hobby Lobby and other craft stores.
 .
Taint is a term used in the legal field with reference to evidence that has been "tainted" or ruined in some manner.
 The most common of such usage is with reference to evidence, testimony, identification by witnesses, or confessions that have been obtained by law enforcement illegally.
 The illegality usually results from a violation of one's constitutional rights, such as a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protecting against unreasonable search and seizure.
 For example, the dissent in the Supreme Court decision of "Missouri v. Seibert" stated that "the court must examine whether the taint dissipated through the passing of time ... .""
 Missouri v. Seibert", 542 U.S. 600, 628 (U.S. 2004) (Justice O'Connor Dissent, emphasis added).
 The court in "Wong Sun v. U.S.", discussed "purg[ing] of the primary taint" with reference to allowing evidence because the defendant's statements were voluntary and a lengthy period of time had passed as an intervening act.
 "Wong Sun v. U.S.", 371 U.S. 471, (1963) (quoting J. Maguire, Evidence of Guilt 221 (1959) (emphasis added) (stating: "... by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint."))
.
Hannah Clayson Smith is senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
 She was part of the legal team for U.S. Supreme Court victories such as Little Sisters of the Poor in Zubik v. Burwell, "Burwell v. Hobby Lobby", Wheaton College v. Burwell, "Holt v. Hobbs", and "Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC".
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014) , is a landmark decision in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
 It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief, but it is limited to "closely held" corporations.
 The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.