Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co.
E193724
Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co. is a famous passage in a 1938 Supreme Court opinion suggesting that certain types of legislation—especially those affecting discrete and insular minorities or fundamental rights—may warrant more rigorous judicial scrutiny than ordinary economic regulation.
All labels observed (3)
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T1711513 — 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: Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co. Context triple: [Harlan F. Stone, knownFor, Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co.]
-
A.
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Katzenbach v. Morgan is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit certain state voting restrictions, reinforcing federal authority to protect voting rights.
-
B.
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States is a 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal by limiting federal power under the Commerce Clause and declaring the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the key burden-shifting framework for proving employment discrimination under Title VII.
-
E.
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowed the standards for proving employment discrimination under Title VII, prompting Congress to later revise those standards in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
- 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: Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co. Target entity description: Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co. is a famous passage in a 1938 Supreme Court opinion suggesting that certain types of legislation—especially those affecting discrete and insular minorities or fundamental rights—may warrant more rigorous judicial scrutiny than ordinary economic regulation.
-
A.
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Katzenbach v. Morgan is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit certain state voting restrictions, reinforcing federal authority to protect voting rights.
-
B.
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States is a 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal by limiting federal power under the Commerce Clause and declaring the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the key burden-shifting framework for proving employment discrimination under Title VII.
-
E.
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowed the standards for proving employment discrimination under Title VII, prompting Congress to later revise those standards in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Supreme Court footnote
ⓘ
legal doctrine ⓘ |
| addresses |
legislation affecting discrete and insular minorities
ⓘ
legislation directed at religious, national, or racial minorities ⓘ legislation interfering with fundamental rights ⓘ legislation restricting freedom of speech ⓘ legislation restricting freedom of the press ⓘ legislation restricting political processes ⓘ legislation restricting rights of political organization ⓘ legislation restricting the right to vote ⓘ |
| appearsIn | majority opinion of United States v. Carolene Products Co. ⓘ |
| associatedWithCase | United States v. Carolene Products Co. ⓘ |
| authoredBy |
Justice Harlan F. Stone
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Harlan Fiske Stone
|
| characterizedAs |
cornerstone of modern judicial scrutiny doctrine
ⓘ
foundational text for modern equal protection analysis ⓘ |
| citedAs |
Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co.
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Carolene Products Footnote Four
Footnote 4 ⓘ |
| contrastsWith | deferential review of economic regulation ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| date | 1938 ⓘ |
| frequentlyDiscussedIn |
U.S. constitutional law casebooks
ⓘ
law review articles ⓘ |
| historicalSignificance |
laid groundwork for post–New Deal constitutional jurisprudence
ⓘ
marked shift from Lochner-era economic substantive due process toward deference on economic regulation ⓘ |
| influenced |
development of tiers of scrutiny in U.S. constitutional law
ⓘ
intermediate scrutiny doctrine ⓘ rational basis with bite doctrine ⓘ strict scrutiny doctrine ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| legalArea |
constitutional law
ⓘ
equal protection ⓘ judicial review ⓘ substantive due process ⓘ |
| locatedInDocument | 304 U.S. 144 (1938) ⓘ |
| opinionAuthor |
Justice Harlan F. Stone
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Harlan Fiske Stone
|
| partOf | United States v. Carolene Products Co. ⓘ |
| proposes | more searching judicial scrutiny for certain legislation ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
discrete and insular minorities
ⓘ
fundamental rights ⓘ political process theory ⓘ presumption of constitutionality ⓘ representation-reinforcing judicial review ⓘ |
| section | third paragraph of the footnote lists special conditions for heightened review ⓘ |
| suggests |
more exacting judicial scrutiny for laws interfering with specific constitutional prohibitions
ⓘ
more exacting judicial scrutiny for laws restricting political processes ⓘ more exacting judicial scrutiny for laws targeting minorities ⓘ presumption of constitutionality may be narrowed in certain cases ⓘ |
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.
Instruction
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.
Input
Subject: Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co. Description of subject: Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co. is a famous passage in a 1938 Supreme Court opinion suggesting that certain types of legislation—especially those affecting discrete and insular minorities or fundamental rights—may warrant more rigorous judicial scrutiny than ordinary economic regulation.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
subject surface form:
Harlan F. Stone
Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co.
→
citedAs
→
Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co.
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
this entity surface form:
Carolene Products Footnote Four
subject surface form:
Harlan Fiske Stone
this entity surface form:
Stone’s Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co.