question: Are Shapiro v. Thompson and Schenck v. United States both US Supreme Court cases?
answer: yes
context: 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: Criminal law in the Waite Court
  Passage: 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).
  Title: Shapiro v. McManus
  Passage: Shapiro v. McManus, 577 U.S. ___ (2015) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified when United States District Court judges must refer cases to three-judge panels.  In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court ruled that federal district courts are required to refer cases to a three-judge panel when plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts.
  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: 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: Evans v. Jordan
  Passage: Evans v. Jordan, 13 U.S. 199 (1815) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that someone who had copied a patented invention after the patent had expired, and before the patent was restored by a private bill, would be liable for damages for patent infringement for any use continuing after the patent was restored.  It was the second published Supreme Court decision on patent law, and the first of four Supreme Court cases dealing with the Oliver Evans flour mill patent.  Like other Supreme Court patent cases prior to "Evans v. Eaton", however, this case did not deal with substantive patent law, but only with issues of statutory construction and infringement liability.
  Title: Shapiro v. Thompson
  Passage: Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), was a Supreme Court decision that helped to establish a fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law.  Although the Constitution does not mention the right to travel, it is implied by the other rights given in the Constitution.  (Although the right was recognized under the Equal Protection clause in this case, pre-Fourteenth Amendment, the right to travel was understood as protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article IV), as a privilege of citizenship, and therefore might have been applied to the states under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of Amendment XIV, as J. Stewart wanted.)
  Title: Stephen Halbrook
  Passage: Stephen P. Halbrook is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and an author and lawyer known for his litigation on behalf of the National Rifle Association.  He has written extensively about the original meanings of the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment (the latter as applied to Second Amendment rights).  He has argued and won three cases before the US Supreme Court: "Printz v. United States", "United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company", and "Castillo v. United States".  He has also written briefs in many other cases, including the Supreme Court cases "Small v. United States" (pertaining to the Gun Control Act of 1968) and "McDonald v. Chicago".  In "District of Columbia v. Heller", he wrote a brief on behalf of the majority of both houses of Congress.  More broadly, his decades of research on the Second Amendment contributed to the intellectual foundation of the "Heller" decision.  He has written many books and articles on the topic of gun control, some of which have been cited in Supreme Court opinions ("Heller", "McDonald", "Printz v. United States").  He has testified before congress on multiple occasions.  Halbrook’s most important scholarly contribution, however, was the book "That Every Man Be Armed", originally published in 1986.  The book was the most thorough analysis of the legal history and original intent of the Second Amendment.
  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: 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.
citations: Schenck v. United States Shapiro v. Thompson