No. 16-476
E1222623
UNEXPLORED
No. 16-476 is the U.S. Supreme Court docket number for the case in which the Court struck down key provisions of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) as unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| No. 16-476 canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T16599033 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: No. 16-476 Context triple: [The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act’s provisions prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling schemes violate the anti-commandeering rule of the Tenth Amendment, SupremeCourtDocketNumber, No. 16-476]
-
A.
Rassmussen v. United States
Rassmussen v. United States is a 1905 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the Insular Cases framework to determine the constitutional rights available in newly acquired U.S. territories.
-
B.
National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan
National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan is a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the time limits for filing employment discrimination claims, distinguishing between discrete acts and continuing violations under Title VII.
-
C.
424 U.S. 351
424 U.S. 351 is the official United States Reports citation for the Supreme Court case De Canas v. Bica (1976), which addressed the extent of state authority over the employment of unauthorized immigrants.
-
D.
United States v. Bajakajian
United States v. Bajakajian is a 1998 U.S. Supreme Court case that held, for the first time, that a criminal forfeiture could violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense.
-
E.
Frank v. Mangum
Frank v. Mangum is a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing whether mob-dominated criminal trials violate due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: No. 16-476 Target entity description: No. 16-476 is the U.S. Supreme Court docket number for the case in which the Court struck down key provisions of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) as unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine.
-
A.
Rassmussen v. United States
Rassmussen v. United States is a 1905 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the Insular Cases framework to determine the constitutional rights available in newly acquired U.S. territories.
-
B.
National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan
National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan is a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the time limits for filing employment discrimination claims, distinguishing between discrete acts and continuing violations under Title VII.
-
C.
424 U.S. 351
424 U.S. 351 is the official United States Reports citation for the Supreme Court case De Canas v. Bica (1976), which addressed the extent of state authority over the employment of unauthorized immigrants.
-
D.
United States v. Bajakajian
United States v. Bajakajian is a 1998 U.S. Supreme Court case that held, for the first time, that a criminal forfeiture could violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense.
-
E.
Frank v. Mangum
Frank v. Mangum is a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing whether mob-dominated criminal trials violate due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act’s provisions prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling schemes violate the anti-commandeering rule of the Tenth Amendment.
→
SupremeCourtDocketNumber
→
No. 16-476
ⓘ
subject surface form:
The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act’s provisions prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling schemes violate the anti-commandeering rule of the Tenth Amendment