Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs
E403299
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to subject states to damages suits under the Family and Medical Leave Act as a valid exercise of its enforcement authority under the Fourteenth Amendment.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs canonical | 3 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3981248 — 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: Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs Context triple: [Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, interpretedByCase, Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs]
-
A.
South Dakota v. Dole
South Dakota v. Dole is a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to condition federal highway funds on states adopting a minimum drinking age of 21, helping define the scope of the federal spending power.
-
B.
National League of Cities v. Usery
National League of Cities v. Usery was a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that temporarily limited Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause by holding that federal wage and hour regulations could not be applied to traditional state government functions.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
Ex parte Young
Ex parte Young is a landmark 1908 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created a legal fiction allowing suits in federal court against state officials to stop ongoing violations of federal law, despite state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
-
E.
Timbs v. Indiana
Timbs v. Indiana is a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
- 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: Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs Target entity description: Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to subject states to damages suits under the Family and Medical Leave Act as a valid exercise of its enforcement authority under the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
A.
South Dakota v. Dole
South Dakota v. Dole is a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to condition federal highway funds on states adopting a minimum drinking age of 21, helping define the scope of the federal spending power.
-
B.
National League of Cities v. Usery
National League of Cities v. Usery was a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that temporarily limited Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause by holding that federal wage and hour regulations could not be applied to traditional state government functions.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
Ex parte Young
Ex parte Young is a landmark 1908 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created a legal fiction allowing suits in federal court against state officials to stop ongoing violations of federal law, despite state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
-
E.
Timbs v. Indiana
Timbs v. Indiana is a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
court case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ |
| citation |
123 S. Ct. 1972
ⓘ
155 L. Ed. 2d 953 ⓘ 538 U.S. 721 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
David H. Souter
ⓘ
John Paul Stevens ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2003-05-27 ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Antonin Scalia ⓘ Clarence Thomas ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 01-1368 ⓘ |
| holding |
Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity in enacting the family-care provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act under its Section 5 enforcement power of the Fourteenth Amendment
ⓘ
States may be sued for money damages by employees for violations of the FMLA’s family-care leave provisions ⓘ |
| issue | Whether Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity when it allowed state employees to recover money damages in federal court for the state’s failure to comply with the FMLA’s family-care leave provision ⓘ |
| joinedMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Antonin Scalia ⓘ David H. Souter ⓘ John Paul Stevens ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| legalProvisionInterpreted |
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
ⓘ
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
ⓘ
surface form:
Family and Medical Leave Act
Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ civil rights ⓘ constitutional law ⓘ employment law ⓘ federal courts ⓘ gender discrimination ⓘ state sovereign immunity ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| majorityVote | 6-3 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Nevada Department of Human Resources ⓘ |
| precedentFor |
Congress’s power to abrogate state sovereign immunity under the Fourteenth Amendment
ⓘ
application of Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to gender discrimination in leave policies ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett
ⓘ
City of Boerne v. Flores ⓘ Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents ⓘ Tennessee v. Lane ⓘ |
| respondent | William Hibbs NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| result | judgment of the Ninth Circuit affirmed ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2002 ⓘ |
| topic |
abrogation of state sovereign immunity
ⓘ
congruence and proportionality test ⓘ sex-based classifications ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 2003 ⓘ |
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: Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs Description of subject: Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to subject states to damages suits under the Family and Medical Leave Act as a valid exercise of its enforcement authority under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
→
interpretedByCase
→
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs
ⓘ
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett
→
subsequentCitationBy
→
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs
ⓘ