Dorr v. United States
E417279
Dorr v. United States is a 1904 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the limited application of constitutional rights in unincorporated territories under the Insular Cases doctrine.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Dorr v. United States canonical | 7 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T4158630 — 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: Dorr v. United States Context triple: [Insular Cases doctrine, hasPart, Dorr v. United States]
-
A.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
B.
Dennis v. United States
Dennis v. United States is a landmark 1951 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the convictions of Communist Party leaders under the Smith Act, significantly shaping First Amendment jurisprudence on speech advocating the overthrow of the government.
-
C.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
D.
Yates v. United States
Yates v. United States is a 1957 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed the application of the Smith Act by distinguishing between the advocacy of abstract doctrine and the advocacy of concrete action to overthrow the government.
-
E.
Dickerson v. United States
Dickerson v. United States is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the constitutional basis of Miranda warnings and held that Congress could not overrule Miranda v. Arizona by statute.
- 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: Dorr v. United States Target entity description: Dorr v. United States is a 1904 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the limited application of constitutional rights in unincorporated territories under the Insular Cases doctrine.
-
A.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
B.
Dennis v. United States
Dennis v. United States is a landmark 1951 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the convictions of Communist Party leaders under the Smith Act, significantly shaping First Amendment jurisprudence on speech advocating the overthrow of the government.
-
C.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
D.
Yates v. United States
Yates v. United States is a 1957 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed the application of the Smith Act by distinguishing between the advocacy of abstract doctrine and the advocacy of concrete action to overthrow the government.
-
E.
Dickerson v. United States
Dickerson v. United States is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the constitutional basis of Miranda warnings and held that Congress could not overrule Miranda v. Arizona by statute.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (43)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Insular Case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ |
| affects | criminal procedure in the Philippine Islands under U.S. sovereignty ⓘ |
| areaOfImpact |
application of the U.S. Constitution in unincorporated territories
ⓘ
scope of constitutional rights outside the states ⓘ |
| citation | 195 U.S. 138 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Article III of the United States Constitution
ⓘ
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment ⓘ
surface form:
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
|
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1904-05-31 ⓘ |
| doctrine |
Insular Cases
ⓘ
surface form:
Insular Cases doctrine
|
| fullName | Dorr v. United States self-link ⓘ |
| historicalContext | post–Spanish-American War governance of newly acquired territories ⓘ |
| holding |
Congress may determine whether to extend the constitutional right to jury trial to unincorporated territories.
ⓘ
The right to trial by jury under the U.S. Constitution does not apply ex proprio vigore to unincorporated territories such as the Philippine Islands. ⓘ |
| insularCasesCategory | unincorporated territory ⓘ |
| issue |
Whether criminal defendants in unincorporated territories are constitutionally entitled to jury trials.
ⓘ
Whether the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury applies of its own force in the Philippine Islands. ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal ⓘ |
| language | English ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal procedure ⓘ territorial law ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionAuthor | William R. Day NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Day, J. ⓘ |
| pageInUnitedStatesReports | 138 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Dorr ⓘ |
| principle |
Not all constitutional guarantees automatically apply in full to unincorporated territories.
ⓘ
Only fundamental constitutional rights apply ex proprio vigore in unincorporated territories. ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Balzac v. Porto Rico
ⓘ
Downes v. Bidwell ⓘ Hawaii v. Mankichi ⓘ Ocampo v. United States ⓘ |
| respondent |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| shortDescription | U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting automatic application of the jury trial right in unincorporated territories. ⓘ |
| subsequentInfluenceOn |
Balzac v. Porto Rico
ⓘ
later jurisprudence on territorial incorporation ⓘ |
| territorialScope | unincorporated territories of the United States ⓘ |
| territoryInvolved |
Philippines
ⓘ
surface form:
Philippine Islands
|
| volumeInUnitedStatesReports | 195 ⓘ |
| vote | 7–2 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1904 ⓘ |
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: Dorr v. United States Description of subject: Dorr v. United States is a 1904 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the limited application of constitutional rights in unincorporated territories under the Insular Cases doctrine.
Referenced by (7)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
subject surface form:
Insular Cases doctrine