Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969)
E809988
Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that a city charter amendment imposing special voting requirements for fair housing laws violated the Equal Protection Clause by restructuring the political process to disadvantage racial minorities.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969) canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T9607476 — 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: Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969) Context triple: [Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action), reliesOnPrecedent, Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969)]
-
A.
Shaw v. Hunt
Shaw v. Hunt is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that further developed the Court’s racial gerrymandering jurisprudence by applying and extending the principles first articulated in Shaw v. Reno.
-
B.
Hurd v. Hodge
Hurd v. Hodge is a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially restrictive covenants in property deeds could not be judicially enforced in the District of Columbia because such enforcement would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
393 U.S. 503
393 U.S. 503 is the official United States Reports citation for the landmark 1969 Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines, which established strong First Amendment free speech protections for public school students.
-
D.
Herring v. United States
Herring v. United States is a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case that further limited the application of the exclusionary rule by holding that evidence need not be suppressed when obtained through isolated police negligence rather than deliberate or reckless misconduct.
-
E.
Berman v. Parker
Berman v. Parker is a landmark 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that broadly interpreted the government’s power of eminent domain under the Fifth Amendment to allow property takings for comprehensive redevelopment and public-purpose projects.
- 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: Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969) Target entity description: Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that a city charter amendment imposing special voting requirements for fair housing laws violated the Equal Protection Clause by restructuring the political process to disadvantage racial minorities.
-
A.
Shaw v. Hunt
Shaw v. Hunt is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that further developed the Court’s racial gerrymandering jurisprudence by applying and extending the principles first articulated in Shaw v. Reno.
-
B.
Hurd v. Hodge
Hurd v. Hodge is a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially restrictive covenants in property deeds could not be judicially enforced in the District of Columbia because such enforcement would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
393 U.S. 503
393 U.S. 503 is the official United States Reports citation for the landmark 1969 Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines, which established strong First Amendment free speech protections for public school students.
-
D.
Herring v. United States
Herring v. United States is a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case that further limited the application of the exclusionary rule by holding that evidence need not be suppressed when obtained through isolated police negligence rather than deliberate or reckless misconduct.
-
E.
Berman v. Parker
Berman v. Parker is a landmark 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that broadly interpreted the government’s power of eminent domain under the Fifth Amendment to allow property takings for comprehensive redevelopment and public-purpose projects.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark equal protection case ⓘ |
| appliedStandardOfReview | strict scrutiny ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
civil rights law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ election law ⓘ |
| challengedProvision | Akron city charter amendment ⓘ |
| citation | 393 U.S. 385 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| constitutionalRightProtected | equal protection of the laws ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1969 ⓘ |
| dissentBy | Justice John M. Harlan II NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| effect | invalidated Akron’s charter amendment requiring referenda for fair housing ordinances ⓘ |
| fullName | Hunter v. Erickson NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
a city charter amendment requiring voter approval for any ordinance regulating real estate transactions on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or ancestry violates the Equal Protection Clause
ⓘ
a city may not restructure its political process in a way that places special burdens on racial minorities seeking legislation ⓘ |
| impact | limited the ability of local governments to single out race-related legislation for special political hurdles ⓘ |
| issue | validity of a city charter amendment imposing special voting requirements for fair housing ordinances ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| legalDoctrine | political process doctrine ⓘ |
| legalPrinciple | government may not make it more difficult for racial minorities to enact beneficial legislation than for other groups ⓘ |
| legalRule | laws that place special burdens on racial minorities in the political process are subject to strict scrutiny ⓘ |
| locationOfOriginatingDispute | Akron, Ohio NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| lowerCourt | Supreme Court of Ohio NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| lowerCourtDisposition | upheld the charter amendment ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Justice Byron R. White NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| page | 385 ⓘ |
| party |
Erickson (defendant)
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Hunter (plaintiff) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| principleAppliedTo | racial classifications in political decision-making structures ⓘ |
| reasoning |
the amendment placed special burdens on racial minorities seeking to secure fair housing protections
ⓘ
the charter amendment explicitly treated racial housing ordinances differently from other ordinances ⓘ |
| recognizedAs | key precedent on political restructuring and minority rights ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967)
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014) NERFINISHED ⓘ Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
fair housing
ⓘ
municipal referendum requirements ⓘ racial discrimination in housing ⓘ |
| SupremeCourtDisposition | reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio ⓘ |
| topic |
racially targeted political restructuring
ⓘ
referendum requirements for civil rights legislation ⓘ |
| volume | 393 ⓘ |
| vote | 8–1 decision ⓘ |
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: Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969) Description of subject: Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that a city charter amendment imposing special voting requirements for fair housing laws violated the Equal Protection Clause by restructuring the political process to disadvantage racial minorities.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action)
→
reliesOnPrecedent
→
Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969)
ⓘ