In the case of the u. s. supreme court rejected an earlier standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence and said that all relevant evidence is admissible unless otherwise provided by the u. s. constitution or other relevant legal rules.

I believe the answer is: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

This case is focused on the standard that the court must used when they're admitting expert testimonies to help with the case because even unqualified 'experts' could really influence juries' opinion. The new standard for experts was later known as the Daubert standard.

It's most likely choice a, it makes the most sense in my opinion.