Ware v. Hylton
E8364
Ware v. Hylton was a 1796 U.S. Supreme Court case that held federal treaties override conflicting state laws, helping to establish the authority of the national government under the Constitution.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Ware v. Hylton canonical | 5 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T33061 — 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: Ware v. Hylton Context triple: [Supremacy Clause, interpretedInCase, Ware v. Hylton]
-
A.
Hines v. Davidowitz
Hines v. Davidowitz is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that held federal law preempts conflicting state alien-registration laws under the Supremacy Clause.
-
B.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by affirming Congress’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations under the Commerce Clause.
-
E.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down city ordinances targeting Santería animal sacrifice and clarified that laws burdening religious practice must be neutral and generally applicable under the Free Exercise Clause.
- 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: Ware v. Hylton Target entity description: Ware v. Hylton was a 1796 U.S. Supreme Court case that held federal treaties override conflicting state laws, helping to establish the authority of the national government under the Constitution.
-
A.
Hines v. Davidowitz
Hines v. Davidowitz is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that held federal law preempts conflicting state alien-registration laws under the Supremacy Clause.
-
B.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by affirming Congress’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations under the Commerce Clause.
-
E.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down city ordinances targeting Santería animal sacrifice and clarified that laws burdening religious practice must be neutral and generally applicable under the Free Exercise Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (42)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark United States Supreme Court case ⓘ |
| alsoKnownAs | The British Debt Case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
conflict of laws
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ contracts ⓘ international law ⓘ |
| citation | 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Article VI
ⓘ
surface form:
Article VI of the United States Constitution
Supremacy Clause ⓘ
surface form:
Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution
|
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| courtType | court of last resort ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1796 ⓘ |
| defendant | Hylton ⓘ |
| fullCaseName | Ware v. Hylton self-link ⓘ |
| governmentBranch | judicial branch of the United States federal government ⓘ |
| historicalContext | post-American Revolutionary War debt disputes ⓘ |
| holding |
a state law cannot nullify rights secured by a treaty of the United States
ⓘ
federal treaties override conflicting state laws ⓘ |
| importance |
early articulation of the Supremacy Clause
ⓘ
helped establish the authority of the national government under the Constitution ⓘ one of the first Supreme Court cases to invalidate a state law as inconsistent with a federal treaty ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| languageOfProceedings | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
conflict between federal treaties and state laws
ⓘ
enforcement of pre-Revolutionary War debts owed to British creditors ⓘ supremacy of treaties under the U.S. Constitution ⓘ |
| plaintiff | Ware ⓘ |
| precedentFor |
federal supremacy in foreign affairs
ⓘ
judicial review of state laws for consistency with federal treaties ⓘ supremacy of federal treaties over state legislation ⓘ |
| relatedCase | Hylton v. United States ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
Supremacy Clause
ⓘ
federalism in the United States ⓘ judicial review of state laws ⓘ treaty supremacy ⓘ |
| result | Virginia law was held inoperative to the extent it conflicted with the Treaty of Paris ⓘ |
| state | Virginia ⓘ |
| stateLawInvolved | Virginia statute providing for payment of debts to British creditors into the state treasury ⓘ |
| timePeriod | Early Republic ⓘ |
| treatyInvolved |
Treaty of Paris (1783)
ⓘ
surface form:
Treaty of Paris of 1783
|
| treatyProvisionInvolved | Article 4 of the Treaty of Paris of 1783 ⓘ |
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: Ware v. Hylton Description of subject: Ware v. Hylton was a 1796 U.S. Supreme Court case that held federal treaties override conflicting state laws, helping to establish the authority of the national government under the Constitution.
Referenced by (5)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.