INS v. Chadha
E27123
INS v. Chadha is a landmark 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down the legislative veto as unconstitutional, significantly reshaping the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| INS v. Chadha canonical | 6 |
| Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha | 2 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T208967 — 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: INS v. Chadha Context triple: [National Emergencies Act, relatedTo, INS v. Chadha]
-
A.
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.
-
B.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
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.
Printz v. United States
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.
-
E.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
- 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: INS v. Chadha Target entity description: INS v. Chadha is a landmark 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down the legislative veto as unconstitutional, significantly reshaping the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch.
-
A.
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.
-
B.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
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.
Printz v. United States
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.
-
E.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark constitutional law case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
administrative law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ immigration law ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1982-02-23 ⓘ |
| citation | 462 U.S. 919 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Lewis F. Powell Jr.
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.
|
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Article I of the United States Constitution
ⓘ
Bicameralism requirement ⓘ Presentment Clause ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1983-06-23 ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Byron R. White
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Byron R. White
William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
surface form:
Justice William H. Rehnquist
|
| docketNumber | 80-1832 ⓘ |
| effect |
invalidated many federal statutory provisions using legislative veto mechanisms
ⓘ
limited Congress’s ability to control executive agencies through legislative vetoes ⓘ strengthened executive branch discretion in administration of statutes ⓘ |
| fullName |
INS v. Chadha
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha
|
| holding |
Congress must comply with bicameralism and presentment to take legislative action
ⓘ
Section 244(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is unconstitutional ⓘ one-house legislative veto provisions are unconstitutional ⓘ |
| joinedMajority |
Byron R. White
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Byron R. White
Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Harry A. Blackmun
John Paul Stevens ⓘ
surface form:
Justice John Paul Stevens
Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
Thurgood Marshall ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Thurgood Marshall
William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
Justice William J. Brennan Jr.
|
| jurisdiction | federal question jurisdiction ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
bicameralism and presentment requirements
ⓘ
constitutionality of the legislative veto ⓘ separation of powers ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Warren E. Burger
ⓘ
surface form:
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger
|
| page | 919 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Immigration and Naturalization Service ⓘ |
| rearguedDate |
1982-12-06
ⓘ
1982-12-07 ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
checks and balances
ⓘ
legislative veto ⓘ nondelegation doctrine ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent | Jagdish Rai Chadha ⓘ |
| subsequentHistory | decision has been repeatedly cited as precedent on separation of powers and legislative veto issues ⓘ |
| volume | 462 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1983 ⓘ |
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: INS v. Chadha Description of subject: INS v. Chadha is a landmark 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down the legislative veto as unconstitutional, significantly reshaping the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch.
Referenced by (8)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha
subject surface form:
INS v. Chadha
this entity surface form:
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha