question: Are Corfield v. Coryell and Gonzales v. Carhart both circuit court cases?
answer: no
context: Title: Corfield v. Coryell
  Passage: Corfield v. Coryell (6 Fed.  Cas.  546, no. 3,230 C.C.E.D.Pa.  1823) is a landmark 1823 federal circuit court case decided by Justice Bushrod Washington, sitting as a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  In it, he upheld a New Jersey regulation forbidding non-residents from gathering oysters and clams against a challenge that New Jersey's law violated the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause and that the New Jersey law regulated interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause.  The case is available in Thayer's Cases on Constitutional Law, Part 2
  Title: Freedom of movement under United States law
  Passage: 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).
  Title: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
  Passage: The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L.  108–105 , 117 Stat.  1201 , enacted  05, 2003 , , PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late termination of pregnancy called "partial-birth abortion," referred to in medical literature by as intact dilation and extraction.  Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."  The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of "Gonzales v. Carhart".
  Title: Gonzales v. Carhart
  Passage: Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.  The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appealed a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of LeRoy Carhart that struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.  Also before the Supreme Court was the consolidated appeal of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
  Title: Same-sex marriage in Indiana
  Passage: Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in the U.S. state of Indiana since October 6, 2014.  The state had previously restricted marriage to male-female couples by statute in 1986.  By legislation passed in 1997, it denied recognition to same-sex relationships established in other jurisdictions.  A lawsuit challenging the state's refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, "Baskin v. Bogan", won a favorable ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on June 25, 2014.  Until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted an emergency stay of the district court's ruling on June 27, most Indiana counties issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling in "Baskin" on September 4.  A ruling in "Bowling v. Pence" stated that the state must recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state and the decision was stayed until the Circuit ruled on the merits in similar cases.  It also stated that the ruling would remain stayed if the circuit court stayed its decision in the related cases.
  Title: LeRoy Carhart
  Passage: LeRoy Harrison Carhart (born 1941) is an American physician from New Jersey best known for performing abortions late in pregnancy.  He became famous for his participation in the Supreme Court cases "Stenberg v. Carhart" and "Gonzales v. Carhart", both of which dealt with intact dilation and extraction (colloquially known as "partial-birth abortion").  He was one of the four subjects of the 2013 documentary "After Tiller".
  Title: Isabel González
  Passage: Isabel González (May 2, 1882 – June 11, 1971) was a Puerto Rican activist who helped pave the way for Puerto Ricans to be given United States citizenship.  As a young unwed pregnant woman, González had her plans to find and marry the father of her unborn child derailed by the United States Treasury Department when she was excluded as an alien "likely to become a public charge" upon her arrival in New York City.  González challenged the Government of the United States in the groundbreaking case "Gonzales v. Williams" (192 U.S. 1 (1904)).  Officially the case was known as "Isabella Gonzales, Appellant, v. William Williams, United States Commissioner of Immigration at the Port of New York" No. 225, argued December 4, 7, 1903, and decided January 4, 1904.  Her case was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, filed February 27, 1903, after also having her Writ of Habeas Corpus (HC.  1-187) dismissed.  Her Supreme Court case is the first time that the Court confronted the citizenship status of inhabitants of territories acquired by the United States.  González actively pursued the cause of U.S. citizenship for all Puerto Ricans by writing letters published in "The New York Times".
  Title: Circuit Court (Ireland)
  Passage: The Circuit Court (Irish: "An Chúirt Chuarda" ) of Ireland is an intermediate level court of local and limited jurisdiction in the which hears both civil and criminal matters.  On the criminal side the Circuit Court hears criminal matters tried on indictment with a judge and jury, except for certain serious crimes which are tried in either the Central Criminal Court or the Special Criminal Court.  On the civil side the Circuit Court has a considerable parallel jurisdiction — including equitable remedies — with the High Court but normally cannot award damages of more than €75,000.  The Circuit Court also hears "de novo" appeals from the District Court in both civil and criminal matters.
  Title: Same-sex marriage by Circuit Court
  Passage: 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".  After the "Windsor" ruling, many same-sex marriage bans were struck down by lower courts.  The Tenth, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth circuits all ruled that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.  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.  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.  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.  In some states, same-sex marriage was already legal before a federal circuit court ruled on the matter.  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.  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.  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.  Some circuit courts have not ruled on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans at all.  Many circuit courts had pending same-sex marriage cases, but decided to hold off on litigation until the Supreme Court ruled on the matter.
  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.
citations: Corfield v. Coryell Gonzales v. Carhart