Minor v. Happersett
E330554
Minor v. Happersett was an 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote, rejecting the argument that suffrage was a privilege of national citizenship.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Minor v. Happersett canonical | 2 |
| Minor v. Happersett women’s suffrage case | 1 |
| Virginia Minor v. Reese Happersett | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3133473 — 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: Minor v. Happersett Context triple: [Morrison R. Waite, presidedOver, Minor v. Happersett]
-
A.
United States v. Cruikshank
United States v. Cruikshank was an 1876 U.S. Supreme Court decision that severely limited federal enforcement of civil rights protections, especially against racially motivated violence in the Reconstruction-era South.
-
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.
Ableman v. Booth
Ableman v. Booth was an 1859 U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed federal supremacy over state courts in enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act before the Civil War.
-
D.
The Prize Cases
The Prize Cases were a landmark 1863 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld President Abraham Lincoln’s authority to blockade Confederate ports without a formal declaration of war, expanding the scope of executive war powers.
-
E.
Kentucky v. Dennison
Kentucky v. Dennison was an 1861 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited federal power by holding that federal courts could not compel state governors to carry out interstate extradition.
- 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: Minor v. Happersett Target entity description: Minor v. Happersett was an 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote, rejecting the argument that suffrage was a privilege of national citizenship.
-
A.
United States v. Cruikshank
United States v. Cruikshank was an 1876 U.S. Supreme Court decision that severely limited federal enforcement of civil rights protections, especially against racially motivated violence in the Reconstruction-era South.
-
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.
Ableman v. Booth
Ableman v. Booth was an 1859 U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed federal supremacy over state courts in enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act before the Civil War.
-
D.
The Prize Cases
The Prize Cases were a landmark 1863 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld President Abraham Lincoln’s authority to blockade Confederate ports without a formal declaration of war, expanding the scope of executive war powers.
-
E.
Kentucky v. Dennison
Kentucky v. Dennison was an 1861 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited federal power by holding that federal courts could not compel state governors to carry out interstate extradition.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (46)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
legal case ⓘ voting rights case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
election law ⓘ |
| chiefJusticeAtTime |
Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite
ⓘ
surface form:
Morrison Waite
|
| citation |
21 Wall. 162
ⓘ
88 U.S. 162 ⓘ |
| conclusion | States may restrict suffrage to men unless prohibited by specific constitutional amendment ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1875-03-29 ⓘ |
| decisionType | unanimous decision ⓘ |
| defendant | Reese Happersett ⓘ |
| found |
Citizenship does not automatically include the right to vote
ⓘ
Women are citizens of the United States ⓘ |
| fullCaseName |
Minor v. Happersett
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Virginia Minor v. Reese Happersett
|
| hasParty |
Reese Happersett
ⓘ
Virginia Minor ⓘ |
| historicalSignificance |
Important case in the history of the women's suffrage movement in the United States
ⓘ
Key precedent limiting the reach of the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause ⓘ |
| holding |
Suffrage is not a necessary privilege or immunity of national citizenship
ⓘ
Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
surface form:
The Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee women the right to vote
The U.S. Constitution does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone ⓘ |
| impact |
Hindered federal constitutional strategies for women's suffrage
ⓘ
Rejected constitutional argument that voting is a privilege of national citizenship ⓘ |
| involves |
Fourteenth Amendment
ⓘ
surface form:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Privileges and Immunities Clause ⓘ
surface form:
Privileges or Immunities Clause
citizenship status of women ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| language | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Fourteenth Amendment interpretation
ⓘ
privileges or immunities clause ⓘ voting rights ⓘ women's suffrage ⓘ |
| opinionBy |
Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite
ⓘ
surface form:
Chief Justice Morrison Waite
|
| originatedIn | Missouri ⓘ |
| plaintiff | Virginia Minor ⓘ |
| precededBy | Slaughter-House Cases ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Slaughter-House Cases
ⓘ
Reese v. United States ⓘ
surface form:
United States v. Reese
|
| relatedTo | Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| status | superseded in effect by the Nineteenth Amendment ⓘ |
| subjectOf |
Susan B. Anthony’s New Departure strategy
ⓘ
surface form:
New Departure strategy in women's suffrage movement
|
| usedBy | opponents of women's suffrage before 1920 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1875 ⓘ |
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: Minor v. Happersett Description of subject: Minor v. Happersett was an 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote, rejecting the argument that suffrage was a privilege of national citizenship.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
subject surface form:
Morrison R. Waite
this entity surface form:
Minor v. Happersett women’s suffrage case
this entity surface form:
Virginia Minor v. Reese Happersett