Printz v. United States
E13965
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Printz v. United States canonical | 8 |
| Printz v. United States (1997) | 7 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T125905 — 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.
Target entity: Printz v. United States Context triple: [Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, keyCase, Printz v. United States]
-
A.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
B.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
D.
United States v. Comstock
United States v. Comstock is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s authority to civilly commit mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoners beyond their release date under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause.
-
E.
Katzenbach v. McClung
Katzenbach v. McClung is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in local restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
Target entity: Printz v. United States Target entity description: Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
A.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
B.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
D.
United States v. Comstock
United States v. Comstock is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s authority to civilly commit mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoners beyond their release date under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause.
-
E.
Katzenbach v. McClung
Katzenbach v. McClung is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in local restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (50)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Tenth Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ anti-commandeering doctrine case ⓘ federalism case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
United States federalism
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1996-12-03 ⓘ |
| background | challenged interim provisions of the Brady Act requiring local chief law enforcement officers to perform background checks on handgun purchasers ⓘ |
| citation | 521 U.S. 898 ⓘ |
| citedIn |
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018)
ⓘ
surface form:
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
NFIB v. Sebelius ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy | Clarence Thomas ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInvolved |
Necessary and Proper Clause
ⓘ
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1997-06-27 ⓘ |
| decisionType | majority decision with dissents ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
David H. Souter
ⓘ
John Paul Stevens ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 95-1478 ⓘ |
| effect | limited Congress's ability to require state executive officials to carry out federal law ⓘ |
| fullCaseName | Jay Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana, et al. v. United States ⓘ |
| holding |
Congress may not commandeer state or local executive officials to implement federal regulatory programs
ⓘ
provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requiring state and local chief law enforcement officers to conduct background checks are unconstitutional ⓘ |
| issue | whether Congress may compel state and local executive officials to administer a federal regulatory program ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ
surface form:
Sandra Day O'Connor
William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | appellate jurisdiction from lower federal courts ⓘ |
| language | English opinion ⓘ |
| legalDoctrine | anti-commandeering doctrine ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Antonin Scalia ⓘ |
| petitioner | Jay Printz ⓘ |
| petitionerOccupation | Sheriff of Ravalli County, Montana ⓘ |
| precedentFor | limiting federal power over state executive officials ⓘ |
| rearguedDate | 1997-01-14 ⓘ |
| reinforces | New York v. United States (1992) anti-commandeering principle ⓘ |
| relatedStatute | Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| result | Brady Act interim background check mandate on state officers invalidated ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
federalism and separation of powers
ⓘ
gun control background checks ⓘ |
| volume | 521 ⓘ |
| vote | 5-4 ⓘ |
| year | 1997 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Subject: Printz v. United States Description of subject: Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
Referenced by (15)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.