Question: Did both  Slaughter-House Cases and United States v. Darby Lumber Co. involve civil rights law?

Context:
Criminal law in the Waite Court
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).
Margo Schlanger
Margo Jane Schlanger (born 1967) is a Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School, and the founder and director of the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.
 From 2010-2012, while on leave from her professorial position, she served as the presidentially-appointed Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at the United States Department of Homeland Security.
 As the top civil rights official at the Department of Homeland Security, Schlanger led the office that advises Department leadership about civil rights and civil liberties issues, engages with communities whose civil rights and civil liberties may be affected by Department activities, investigates and resolves civil rights complaints, and leads the Departments equal employment opportunity program.
 Schlanger's major initiatives as Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer included: creating and managing a structure for overseeing the Department's controversial Secure Communities program to ensure that it did not serve as a conduit for unconstitutional practices by local law enforcement agencies in jurisdictions covered by the program; publishing guidance for agencies that receive DHS funding on providing meaningful access to people with limited English proficiency; working with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on the reform of detention practices; and improving the Department's civil rights complaint process.
United States v. Kirby Lumber Co.
United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that when a corporation settles its debts for less than the face amount, a taxable gain has occurred.
United States v. Darby Lumber Co.
United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941) , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, holding that the U.S. Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate employment conditions.
 The unanimous decision of the Court in this case overturned "Hammer v. Dagenhart" 247 U.S. 251 (1918) , limited the application of "Carter v. Carter Coal Company" 298 U.S. 238 (1936) , and confirmed the underlying legality of minimum wages held in "West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish" 300 U.S. 379 (1937) .
Monroe v. Pape
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961) , was a United States Supreme Court case that considered the application of federal civil rights law to constitutional violations by city employees.
 The case was significant because it held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statutory provision from 1871, could be used to sue state officers who violated a plaintiff's constitutional rights.
 § 1983 had previously been a relatively obscure and little-used statute, but since Monroe it has become a central part of United States civil rights law.
Convention on the Rights of Older Persons
The proposed Convention on the Rights of Older Persons is regarded as the next major United Nations human rights treaty.
 The proposed treaty will seek to remedy the fragmented human rights structure for older persons, and will focus on reaffirming critical human rights which are of concern to the elderly.
 The focus of the treaty will be persons over 60 years of age, which is a growing demographic worldwide due to increased population ageing.
 The treaty follows from the success of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which has seen near universal acceptance since 1989.
 Where the UNCRC focuses on the rights of younger persons, the UNCROP will address those who form the older portion of society, who according to United Nations reports, are becoming increasingly vulnerable as a group without applicable normative standards of Human Rights Law.
 Support for a Convention is becoming increasingly popular, as human rights groups including the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), HelpAge International, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the International Labour Organization, and many other NGOs and states have expressed support for a universal instrument.
 The need for a treaty has arisen due to issues surrounding demographic changes from population ageing.
 This has led to significant interest in how to best ensure the well being of older persons.
 Among the rights issues faced by older persons are their rights against ageist discrimination, and the rights to participation.
 The debate surrounding the convention focuses on the implementation and safeguarding of these rights, to set normative standards of human rights for older persons.
 One substantive issue is the conception of elder abuse as between individuals.
 Individual relationships generally fall outside of current human rights law, which seeks to present standards of relations between states and individuals.
 Therefore, it has been suggested that the proposed human rights convention for older persons ought to be drafted as an anti-discrimination convention.
 However, This would not be consistent with other multilateral human rights conventions such as the ICCPR and ICESCR which set normative standards.
Freedom of movement under United States law
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).
Slaughter-House Cases
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.
Criminal law in the Marshall Court
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).
Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act
The Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) is a New York law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, credit, and the exercise of civil rights.
 SONDA added the term “sexual orientation” to the list of specifically protected characteristics in various State laws, including the Human Rights Law, the Civil Rights Law, and the Education Law.

Answer: no