Question: The first Latina Supreme Court Justice was part of the majority decision of a case that upheld which previous supreme court case?

Context:
Marie Louise v. Marot
Marie Louise v. Marot (1836) was a freedom suit heard by the Louisiana state district court and appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court.
 The Court held that a slave who is taken to a territory prohibitive of slavery cannot be again reduced to slavery on returning to a territory allowing of slavery.
 The ruling was cited as precedent to the 1856 landmark "Dred Scott v. Sandford" case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
 Supreme Court Justice John McLean cited the precedent in his dissent of the majority ruling.
 Six of eight justices did not abide by the precedent in what has been considered the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court.
Alleyne v. United States
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) , was a United States Supreme Court case that decided that, in line with "Apprendi v. New Jersey" (2000), all facts that increase a mandatory minimum sentence must be submitted to and found true by a jury (not merely determined to be true by a judge's discretion).
 The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Duren v. Missouri
Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) , was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Sixth Amendment.
 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who later became a Supreme Court Justice herself, and Lee Nation argued for Duren in what became Ginsburg's last case before the Supreme Court as an attorney.
 Part of her argument was that making jury duty optional for women should be struck down because it treated women's service on juries as less valuable than men's.
George Anastaplo
George Anastaplo (November 7, 1925 – February 14, 2014) was a professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law and author who was famously denied admission for many years to the Illinois Bar.
 The denial of his admission became a Supreme Court case, In re Anastaplo, in which he insisted that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the privacy of political affiliations; in particular, he refused to answer questions about membership in the Communist Party.
 Anastaplo's stand was based on Constitutional principles and consequent rejection of McCarthyism, and nobody alleged that he had membership in the Communist Party.
 The Supreme Court's majority upheld the lower courts' ruling in favor of the Illinois Bar, although Justice Hugo Black dissented.
 After his Supreme Court case and denial of admission to the Bar, Anastaplo supported his family by teaching at the University of Chicago and other universities and colleges.
 He wrote many articles and books on philosophy, many of which acknowledged the influence of his teacher, Leo Strauss.
Rodríguez v. Popular Democratic Party
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.
United States v. Hamilton
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.
United States v. Jackalow
United States v. Jackalow, 66 U.S. (1 Black) 484 (1862), is a U.S. Supreme Court case interpreting the Venue and Vicinage clauses of the United States Constitution.
 It was an "unusual criminal case", and one of the few constitutional criminal cases from the Taney Court.
 Jackalow, a mariner from the Ryukyu Islands, was suspected of the robbery and murder of the captain of the sloop "Spray", Jonathan Leete, and Jonathan's brother Elijah, while the ship was at sea.
 He was convicted of robbery in the Long Island Sound, but as there was disagreement over the question of jurisdiction between the two judges who heard the post-trial motion – Judge Mahlon Dickerson and Supreme Court Justice Robert Cooper Grier – the case was referred to the Supreme Court by certificate of division.
Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia Maria Sotomayor ( , ] ; born June 25, 1954) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, serving since August 2009.
 She has the distinction of being its first justice of Hispanic heritage, the first Latina, its third female justice, and its twelfth Roman Catholic justice.
Supreme Court of Nepal
The Supreme Court is composed of the Chief Justice, twenty Justices.
 The Chief Justice is appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council.
 S/he is appointed from among the justices having at least three years as a Supreme Court justice.
 Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President of Nepal on the recommendation of the Judicial Council.
 The Chief Justice and the justices of the Supreme Court have to be confirmed by the Parliamentary Hearing Committee before they can be appointed by the President.
 The administrative head of the Supreme Court is the Chief Registrar.
 In addition to the Chief Registrar, one Registrar and four Joint-Registrar are appointed to led different departments of the Supreme Court and offer administrative assistance to the Court.
 Officers of the Supreme Court are appointed by Government of Nepal under the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission.
Westendorp v R
Westendorp v R, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 43 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the scope of the federal Parliament's criminal law power under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
 A unanimous Court found that a municipal by-law that prohibited standing in the street for the purpose of prostitution was in the nature of a criminal law prohibition and therefore ultra vires of the provincial constitutional authority.
 The decision surprised many legal scholars who considered it to be inconsistent with previous Supreme Court cases where provincial laws of a moral nature were upheld under the provincial power (see "Canada (AG) v Montreal (City of)", [1978] and "Nova Scotia (Board of Censors) v McNeil" [1978]).
 This was also the first case where the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" was cited in argument to the Supreme Court, although the Charter argument was ultimately abandoned during the hearing.

Answer: Apprendi v. New Jersey