Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett
E403298
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett is a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited Congress’s power to subject states to damages suits under the Americans with Disabilities Act by narrowing the scope of its enforcement authority under the Fourteenth Amendment.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett canonical | 5 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3981247 — 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: Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett Context triple: [Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, interpretedByCase, Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett]
-
A.
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan is a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a state-supported women-only nursing school policy as unconstitutional sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.
-
B.
Gebhart v. Belton
Gebhart v. Belton was a landmark Delaware school segregation case whose rulings in favor of Black students became one of the four consolidated cases decided in Brown v. Board of Education, contributing to the Supreme Court’s rejection of “separate but equal” in public education.
-
C.
Gratz v. Bollinger
Gratz v. Bollinger is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down the University of Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy as violating the Equal Protection Clause by awarding automatic points based on race.
-
D.
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents is a 1950 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down racial segregation within a public university’s graduate program, marking an important step toward the desegregation of higher education.
-
E.
Gregg v. Georgia
Gregg v. Georgia is a landmark 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reinstated the death penalty under revised statutes, holding that capital punishment is constitutional under certain guided-discretion procedures.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
Target entity: Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett Target entity description: Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett is a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited Congress’s power to subject states to damages suits under the Americans with Disabilities Act by narrowing the scope of its enforcement authority under the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
A.
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan is a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a state-supported women-only nursing school policy as unconstitutional sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.
-
B.
Gebhart v. Belton
Gebhart v. Belton was a landmark Delaware school segregation case whose rulings in favor of Black students became one of the four consolidated cases decided in Brown v. Board of Education, contributing to the Supreme Court’s rejection of “separate but equal” in public education.
-
C.
Gratz v. Bollinger
Gratz v. Bollinger is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down the University of Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy as violating the Equal Protection Clause by awarding automatic points based on race.
-
D.
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents is a 1950 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down racial segregation within a public university’s graduate program, marking an important step toward the desegregation of higher education.
-
E.
Gregg v. Georgia
Gregg v. Georgia is a landmark 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reinstated the death penalty under revised statutes, holding that capital punishment is constitutional under certain guided-discretion procedures.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark disability law case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
civil rights
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ disability law ⓘ federal courts ⓘ |
| citation |
121 S. Ct. 955
ⓘ
148 L. Ed. 2d 866 ⓘ 531 U.S. 356 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Fourteenth Amendment
ⓘ
surface form:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| decisionDate | 2001-02-21 ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy | Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| dissentJoinedBy |
David H. Souter
ⓘ
John Paul Stevens ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 99-1240 ⓘ |
| doctrine |
Eleventh Amendment immunity
ⓘ
congruence and proportionality test ⓘ state sovereign immunity ⓘ |
| holding |
Congress did not validly abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity for money damages suits by state employees under Title I of the ADA
ⓘ
Title I of the ADA, as applied to the states, is not a valid exercise of Congress’s enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment for purposes of damages suits ⓘ state employees may not recover money damages from state employers in federal court under Title I of the ADA ⓘ |
| impact |
limited Congress’s power to subject states to damages suits under the ADA
ⓘ
narrowed the scope of Congress’s enforcement authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ restricted remedies available to state employees alleging disability discrimination under Title I of the ADA ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Antonin Scalia ⓘ Clarence Thomas ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| legalIssue | whether Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity under Title I of the ADA ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| party |
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama System
ⓘ
surface form:
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama
Milton Ash NERFINISHED ⓘ Patricia Garrett ⓘ |
| precedentReliedOn |
City of Boerne v. Flores
ⓘ
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents ⓘ Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida ⓘ |
| remedyStillAvailable | prospective injunctive relief against state officials under Ex parte Young ⓘ |
| result | judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed in part ⓘ |
| statuteInterpreted |
Americans with Disabilities Act
ⓘ
surface form:
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act ⓘ |
| subsequentCitationBy |
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs
ⓘ
Tennessee v. Lane ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2000 ⓘ |
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: Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett Description of subject: Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett is a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited Congress’s power to subject states to damages suits under the Americans with Disabilities Act by narrowing the scope of its enforcement authority under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Referenced by (5)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.