Are Gitlow v. New York and City of Boerne v. Flores both Supreme Court cases?
yes
City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) , was a US Supreme Court case concerning the scope of Congress's enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
 The case also had a significant impact on historic preservation.
Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the reach of certain limitations on federal government authority set forth in the First Amendment—specifically the provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press—to the governments of the individual states.
 It was one of a series of Supreme Court cases that defined the scope of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and established the standard to which a state or the federal government would be held when it criminalized speech or writing.
Evans v. Jordan
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. Boerne, Texas
Boerne ( ) is a city in and the county seat of Kendall County, Texas, United States, within the Texas Hill Country.
 Boerne was named in honor of a Jewish-German author and publicist.
 The population of Boerne was 10,471 at the 2010 census.
 The city is noted for the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case "City of Boerne v. Flores".
 Founded in 1849 as Tusculum, the name was changed to Boerne when the town was platted in 1852. Hollingsworth v. Perry
Hollingsworth v. Perry refers to a series of United States federal court cases that legalized same-sex marriage in the State of California.
 The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law.
 This decision overturned ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage.
 After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court.
 The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively.
 As "Hollingsworth v. Perry", it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that, in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so. Brandenburg v. Ohio
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). Stephen Halbrook
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. State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a federal law that was passed almost unanimously by the U.S. Congress in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
 The law mandates that religious liberty of individuals can only be limited by the "least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest".
 Originally, the federal law was intended to apply to federal, state, and local governments.
 In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court in "City of Boerne v. Flores" held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act only applies to the federal government but not states and other local municipalities within them.
 As a result, 21 states have passed their own RFRAs that apply to their individual state and local governments. Westendorp v R
Westendorp v R, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 43 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the scope of the federal Parliament's criminal law power under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
 A unanimous Court found that a municipal by-law that prohibited standing in the street for the purpose of prostitution was in the nature of a criminal law prohibition and therefore ultra vires of the provincial constitutional authority.
 The decision surprised many legal scholars who considered it to be inconsistent with previous Supreme Court cases where provincial laws of a moral nature were upheld under the provincial power (see "Canada (AG) v Montreal (City of)", [1978] and "Nova Scotia (Board of Censors) v McNeil" [1978]).
 This was also the first case where the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" was cited in argument to the Supreme Court, although the Charter argument was ultimately abandoned during the hearing. 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).