Question: Which Supreme court ruling United States v. Wong Kim Ark or Wickard v. Filburn was made first ?

<P0-S0> California Education Code 48907 (1977), also known as the California Student Free Expression Law, acts as a counter to the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Supreme Court ruling, which limited the freedom of speech granted to public high school newspapers. <P0-S1>  The Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as "forums for student expression" are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established (by policy or practice) as forums for student expression. <P0-S2>  Ed Code 48907 affirms the right of high school newspapers to publish whatever they choose, so long as the content is not explicitly obscene, libelous, or slanderous. <P0-S3>  The newspaper content must also pass the minimal disruption test set forth in the Supreme Court ruling on Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). <P0-S4>  In contrast with Hazelwood, which limited First Amendment Protection to only those high school newspapers that had, through practice or policy, been established as forums for student expression, Ed Code 48907 affirms the right of all newspapers to the freedom of expression. <SEP> <P1-S0> Prior to the landmark ruling "United States v. Windsor", the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage was upheld by the Eighth Circuit in "Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning". <P1-S1>  After the "Windsor" ruling, many same-sex marriage bans were struck down by lower courts. <P1-S2>  The Tenth, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth circuits all ruled that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional. <P1-S3>  The cases that made it to these circuit courts originated in district courts which for the most part also struck down same-sex marriage bans. <P1-S4>  When a circuit court struck down a state's same-sex marriage ban, it did not directly strike down same-sex marriage bans in other states within the circuit. <P1-S5>  However, it paved the way for same-sex marriage bans to be struck down in the entire circuit due to the precedent it set for district courts within the circuit to follow. <P1-S6>  In some states, same-sex marriage was already legal before a federal circuit court ruled on the matter. <P1-S7>  The Sixth Circuit ruled that same-sex marriage bans were not unconstitutional and reversed the district court rulings that struck down same-sex marriage bans. <P1-S8>  Since this was the only circuit court to rule this way post-"Windsor", this created a circuit split which ultimately led to the Supreme Court of the United States deciding to resolve the issue once and for all. <P1-S9>  They ruled that same-sex marriage bans violate the constitution in the landmark ruling "Obergefell v. Hodges" which was the consolidated case that covered each state in the Sixth Circuit. <P1-S10>  Some circuit courts have not ruled on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans at all. <P1-S11>  Many circuit courts had pending same-sex marriage cases, but decided to hold off on litigation until the Supreme Court ruled on the matter. <SEP> <P2-S0>  This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. <P2-S1> United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth. <SEP> <P3-S0>  It was a test case that was heard shortly after the United States had entered World War II. <P3-S1>  The goal of the business interests that financed the legal challenge all the way to the Supreme Court was to convince the Court to declare the entire federal crop support program unconstitutional and thereby end it. <P3-S2> Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. <P3-S3>  The Filburn decision supported what Congress had done, and said the Constitution enabled congressional regulation that included economic activity that was only indirectly related to interstate commerce.