Edwards v. California
E507014
Edwards v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a California law restricting the bringing of indigent persons into the state, holding that such limits on interstate movement violated the Commerce Clause.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Edwards v. California canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T5256684 — 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: Edwards v. California Context triple: [Shapiro v. Thompson, relatedCase, Edwards v. California]
-
A.
Rochin v. California
Rochin v. California is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that held evidence obtained by methods that "shock the conscience," such as forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
B.
Whitney v. California
Whitney v. California was a 1927 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a conviction under a state criminal syndicalism law and became historically significant for Justice Brandeis’s influential concurrence on free speech before later being overruled.
-
C.
Bridges v. California
Bridges v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded First Amendment protections by limiting the power of courts to punish out-of-court publications as contempt.
-
D.
Miller v. California
Miller v. California is a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that redefined the legal test for obscenity and allowed greater regulation of pornographic materials.
-
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: Edwards v. California Target entity description: Edwards v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a California law restricting the bringing of indigent persons into the state, holding that such limits on interstate movement violated the Commerce Clause.
-
A.
Rochin v. California
Rochin v. California is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that held evidence obtained by methods that "shock the conscience," such as forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
B.
Whitney v. California
Whitney v. California was a 1927 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a conviction under a state criminal syndicalism law and became historically significant for Justice Brandeis’s influential concurrence on free speech before later being overruled.
-
C.
Bridges v. California
Bridges v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded First Amendment protections by limiting the power of courts to punish out-of-court publications as contempt.
-
D.
Miller v. California
Miller v. California is a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that redefined the legal test for obscenity and allowed greater regulation of pornographic materials.
-
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 (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Commerce Clause case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1941-11-06 ⓘ |
| citation | 314 U.S. 160 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1941-11-24 ⓘ |
| decisionType | plenary decision ⓘ |
| effectOnLaw | limited state power to exclude indigent migrants from entering the state. ⓘ |
| fullName | Edwards v. California NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
A state may not bar the transportation of indigent persons into the state because such a restriction is an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.
ⓘ
California Welfare and Institutions Code § 2615, prohibiting knowingly bringing an indigent person into California, violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. ⓘ |
| issue |
Whether California may restrict the interstate movement of indigent persons.
ⓘ
Whether a state law criminalizing the transportation of indigent nonresidents into the state violates the Commerce Clause. ⓘ |
| joinedByMajority |
Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Justice Felix Frankfurter NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Frank Murphy NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Hugo L. Black NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Owen J. Roberts NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Robert H. Jackson NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Stanley F. Reed NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice William O. Douglas NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | United States federal jurisdiction NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| lawChallenged | California Welfare and Institutions Code § 2615 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| lawChallengedDescription | California statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly bring or assist in bringing an indigent person into the state. ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Justice James F. Byrnes NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| pageInUnitedStatesReports | 160 ⓘ |
| party |
Edwards
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
State of California NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| petitioner | Edwards NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| priorHistory | People v. Edwards, 35 Cal. App. 2d 673, 96 P.2d 379 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| respondent | California NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| result | California statute restricting the bringing of indigent persons into the state was struck down. ⓘ |
| separateOpinion |
concurrence by Justice Felix Frankfurter
ⓘ
concurrence by Justice Harlan F. Stone ⓘ concurrence by Justice Robert H. Jackson ⓘ concurrence by Justice William O. Douglas ⓘ |
| significance |
considered an important step toward recognition of a constitutional right to interstate travel.
ⓘ
recognized that the movement of persons is a form of interstate commerce protected from undue state burdens. ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
constitutional limits on state regulation of interstate movement of persons
ⓘ
federalism and state police powers ⓘ |
| topic |
indigency and poverty laws
ⓘ
interstate commerce ⓘ right to travel between states ⓘ state regulation of migration ⓘ |
| volumeOfUnitedStatesReports | 314 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1941 ⓘ |
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: Edwards v. California Description of subject: Edwards v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a California law restricting the bringing of indigent persons into the state, holding that such limits on interstate movement violated the Commerce Clause.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.