question: In what court were Missouri v. Holland and Schenck v. United States heard?
answer: the United States Supreme Court
context: Title: Schenck v. United States
  Passage: Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) , is a United States Supreme Court case concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I.  A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed fliers to draft-age men, urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense.  The First Amendment did not alter the well-established law in cases where the attempt was made through expressions that would be protected in other circumstances.  In this opinion, Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished.
  Title: Imminent lawless action
  Passage: "Imminent lawless action" is a standard currently used that was established by the United States Supreme Court in "Brandenburg v. Ohio" (1969), for defining the limits of freedom of speech.  "Brandenburg" clarified what constituted a "clear and present danger", the standard established by "Schenck v. United States" (1919), and overruled "Whitney v. California" (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal.  Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely.  While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in "Hess v. Indiana" (1973).  In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time," and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.
  Title: Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York
  Passage: Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357 (1997), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court related to legal protection of access to abortion.  It ruled in an 8-1 decision that "floating buffer zones" preventing protesters approaching people entering or leaving abortion clinics were unconstitutional, though "fixed buffer zones" around the clinics themselves remained constitutional.  The Court's upholding the fixed buffer was the most important aspect of the ruling, because it was a common feature of injunctions nationwide.
  Title: Missouri v. Holland
  Passage: 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.
  Title: Same-sex marriage in the Sixth Circuit
  Passage: On April 28, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments for "Obergefell v. Hodges" (Ohio), which was consolidated with three other same-sex marriage cases from the other states in the Sixth Circuit: "Tanco v. Haslam" (Tennessee), "DeBoer v. Snyder" (Michigan), "Bourke v. Beshear" (Kentucky).  On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's decision, paving the way for same-sex marriage to become legal in those states, and setting a precedent for the entire nation.  All four states complied with the ruling the same day it was issued before the mandate was actually issued.  Every state in the circuit had a district court ruling against their states' ban, but they were eventually stayed pending appeal.  The Sixth Circuit consists of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.  On August 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments for same-sex marriage cases from each state within the circuit.  On November 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit in a split 2-1 decision, upheld the states' same-sex marriage bans, reversing the district courts' rulings that struck them down.  The Sixth Circuit was the first and only circuit court since the landmark ruling "United States v. Windsor" to uphold the constitutionality of states' same-sex marriage bans which caused a circuit split.
  Title: Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
  Passage: Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ( ; March 8, 1841 – March 6, 1935) was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932, and as Acting Chief Justice of the United States from January–February 1930.  Noted for his long service, his concise and pithy opinions and his deference to the decisions of elected legislatures, he is one of the most widely cited United States Supreme Court justices in history, particularly for his "clear and present danger" opinion for a unanimous Court in the 1919 case of "Schenck v. United States", and is one of the most influential American common law judges, honored during his lifetime in Great Britain as well as the United States.  Holmes retired from the Court at the age of 90 years, making him the oldest Justice in the Supreme Court's history.  He also served as an Associate Justice and as Chief Justice on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and was Weld Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School, of which he was an alumnus.
  Title: Freedom for the Thought That We Hate
  Passage: Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment is a 2007 non-fiction book by journalist Anthony Lewis about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The book starts by quoting the First Amendment, which prohibits the U.S. Congress from creating legislation which limits free speech or freedom of the press.  Lewis traces the evolution of civil liberties in the U.S. through key historical events.  He provides an overview of important free speech case law, including U.S. Supreme Court opinions in "Schenck v. United States" (1919), "Whitney v. California" (1927), "United States v. Schwimmer" (1929), "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" (1964), and "New York Times Co. v. United States" (1971).
  Title: Brandenburg v. Ohio
  Passage: Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."  Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.  In the process, "Whitney v. California" (1927) was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on "Schenck v. United States" (1919), "Abrams v. United States" (1919), "Gitlow v. New York" (1925), and "Dennis v. United States" (1951).
  Title: Charles Schenck
  Passage: Charles T. Schenck was the secretary of the Socialist Party of America in Philadelphia during the First World War and involved in the 1919 Supreme Court case "Schenck v. United States".
  Title: Bad tendency
  Passage: In U.S. law, the bad tendency principle is a test which permits restriction of freedom of speech by government if it is believed that a form of speech has a sole tendency to incite or cause illegal activity.  The principle, formulated in "Patterson v. Colorado", (1907) was seemingly overturned with the "clear and present danger" principle used in the landmark case "Schenck v. United States" (1919), as stated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Yet eight months later, at the start of the next Term in "Abrams v. United States" (1919) the Court again used the bad tendency test to uphold the conviction of a Russian immigrant who published and distributed leaflets calling for a general strike and otherwise advocated revolutionary, anarchist, and socialist views.  Holmes dissented in "Abrams", explaining how the "clear and present danger test" should be employed to overturn Abrams' conviction.  The arrival of the "bad tendency" test resulted in a string of politically incorrect rulings such as Whitney v. California (1927), where a woman was convicted simply because of her association with the Communist Party.  The court ruled unanimously that although she had not committed any crimes, her relationship with the Communists represented a "bad tendency" and thus was unprotected.  The "bad tendency" test was finally overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and was replaced by the "imminent lawless action" test.
citations: Missouri v. Holland Schenck v. United States