McPherson v. Blacker
E759736
McPherson v. Blacker is an 1892 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a state’s authority to determine how its presidential electors are chosen, affirming broad state control over the Electoral College selection process.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| McPherson v. Blacker canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T8821522 — 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: McPherson v. Blacker Context triple: [Ray v. Blair, relatedCase, McPherson v. Blacker]
-
A.
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.
-
B.
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.
-
C.
Downes v. Bidwell
Downes v. Bidwell is a 1901 U.S. Supreme Court case that helped establish the "Insular Cases" doctrine, holding that full constitutional rights do not automatically extend to all territories under American control.
-
D.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
E.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Yick Wo v. Hopkins is an 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially discriminatory enforcement of a facially neutral law violates the Equal Protection Clause of 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: McPherson v. Blacker Target entity description: McPherson v. Blacker is an 1892 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a state’s authority to determine how its presidential electors are chosen, affirming broad state control over the Electoral College selection process.
-
A.
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.
-
B.
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.
-
C.
Downes v. Bidwell
Downes v. Bidwell is a 1901 U.S. Supreme Court case that helped establish the "Insular Cases" doctrine, holding that full constitutional rights do not automatically extend to all territories under American control.
-
D.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
E.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Yick Wo v. Hopkins is an 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially discriminatory enforcement of a facially neutral law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (45)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
legal case ⓘ |
| affects |
methods of allocating presidential electors
ⓘ
state control over Electoral College selection procedures ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
election law ⓘ public law ⓘ |
| bindingAuthorityIn |
United States federal courts
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
state courts on questions of federal constitutional law ⓘ |
| citationStyle | McPherson v. Blacker NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| clarified |
that states may choose electors by districts rather than statewide winner-take-all
ⓘ
the breadth of state legislative power in presidential elector appointment ⓘ |
| concerns | Michigan law governing appointment of presidential electors ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Electoral College clauses of the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1892 ⓘ |
| governs | how states may structure Electoral College appointment systems ⓘ |
| hasJurisdiction | Supreme Court of the United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution grants state legislatures plenary power over the manner of appointing electors
ⓘ
Michigan’s system for choosing electors by congressional district was constitutional ⓘ states have broad authority to determine the manner of appointing presidential electors ⓘ |
| impact | served as precedent for later cases on state power over elector appointment ⓘ |
| jurisdictionLevel | federal ⓘ |
| language | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
allocation of presidential electors
ⓘ
constitutionality of district-based selection of electors ⓘ scope of state authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution ⓘ |
| locationOfDispute | Michigan NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| natureOfDecision | constitutional interpretation of Article II ⓘ |
| partyType | individuals challenging state election law vs. state officials ⓘ |
| precedentFor | later interpretations of state power over elector selection ⓘ |
| recognized | plenary power of state legislatures over the manner of appointing electors ⓘ |
| relatedTo |
Electoral College of the United States
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
United States presidential elections NERFINISHED ⓘ state legislatures ⓘ |
| result | state law upheld ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
Electoral College
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
United States presidential election system ⓘ presidential electors ⓘ state power over elections ⓘ |
| timePeriod | 19th century ⓘ |
| volumeOfUnitedStatesReports | 146 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1892 ⓘ |
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: McPherson v. Blacker Description of subject: McPherson v. Blacker is an 1892 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a state’s authority to determine how its presidential electors are chosen, affirming broad state control over the Electoral College selection process.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.