Statements (150)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
November 20, 1996
Federalism and state rights. |
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Continues to be cited in legal arguments
Examined balance of power Influenced state legislation on firearms Federalism and law enforcement Analyzed the implications for federalism. Examined federalism in the U. S. Examined the balance of power. Federalism and the role of states. Set limits on federal authority. |
| gptkbp:case_judicial_context |
Context of judicial significance.
|
| gptkbp:case_judicial_impact_analysis |
Analysis of judicial impact.
|
| gptkbp:case_judicial_impact_analysis_summary |
Summary of judicial impact analysis.
|
| gptkbp:case_judicial_impact_summary |
Summary of judicial impact.
|
| gptkbp:case_judicial_outcome_analysis |
Analysis of judicial outcome.
|
| gptkbp:case_judicial_outcome_analysis_summary |
Summary of judicial outcome analysis.
|
| gptkbp:case_judicial_outcome_summary |
Summary of judicial outcome.
|
| gptkbp:case_judicial_precedent_analysis_summary |
Summary of judicial precedent analysis.
|
| gptkbp:case_judicial_precedent_summary |
Summary of judicial precedent.
|
| gptkbp:case_judicial_significance_analysis |
Analysis of judicial significance.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_context_analysis |
Analysis of legal context.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_debate_analysis |
Analysis of legal debate.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_impact_analysis |
Analysis of legal impact.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_impact_analysis_summary |
Summary of legal impact analysis.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_impact_summary |
Summary of legal impact.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_precedent_analysis |
Analysis of legal precedent.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_significance_analysis |
Analysis of legal significance.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_significance_analysis_summary |
Summary of legal significance analysis.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_significance_summary |
Summary of legal significance.
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
Part of a series of federalism cases
Important Supreme Court ruling on state rights. Involved the enforcement of federal laws. |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
5-4 ruling
Significant for gun rights advocates Struck down federal requirement Majority opinion emphasized state sovereignty Set a precedent for state-federal relations Influenced state legislation on gun control. Invalidated certain federal mandates. Reinforced the principle of dual sovereignty. Ruling against federal overreach. Struck down provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Influence on gun legislation
Significance in judicial history. Context of historical significance. Historical significance in U. S. law. Influenced future federal-state relations. Significant for state-federal relations. Important for understanding state-federal dynamics. |
| gptkbp:case_types |
gptkb:Constitution
Constitutional law case. |
| gptkbp:consequences |
Federal government limitations
Impact on state legislation. Influenced discussions on gun control laws. |
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
June 27, 1997 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_John_Paul_Stevens
gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg Dissent argued for federal authority Federal government has authority to enforce laws. Justices who disagreed with the majority opinion. |
| gptkbp:held_in |
The federal government cannot compel state officers to execute federal laws.
|
| gptkbp:historical_context |
1990s gun control debates
Post-1990s gun control debates. |
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Printz v. United States
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Federalism and state sovereignty
State laws on gun control Strengthened state sovereignty in relation to federal mandates. Strengthened state sovereignty against federal mandates. |
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:United_States
gptkb:Sheriff_Jay_Printz Jay Printz |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
521 U. S. 898
521 U. S. 898 (1997) Cited in subsequent federalism cases. |
| gptkbp:judged_by |
Judgment favored state rights.
|
| gptkbp:judges |
Justices of the Supreme Court.
Justices who agreed with the majority opinion. |
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Constitutionality of federal laws
Analysis of judicial review. Summary of judicial review analysis. Summary of judicial review. Outcome of judicial review. Constitutional review of federal laws. Judicial review of federal mandates. |
| gptkbp:key_concept |
Second Amendment rights
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
gptkb:Gun_Control_Act_of_1968
Summary of legal context analysis. Summary of legal context. Context of federalism in the U. S. Second Amendment rights. |
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Constitutional interpretation
Constitutional interpretation. Set a precedent for future cases. Constitutional originalism Analysis of legal framework. Clarified the limits of federal power. Reevaluation of federal mandates Reinforced state power Framework for understanding state rights. Impact on future federalism cases. Outcome reinforced state sovereignty. |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
Constitutionality of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Background checks for handgun purchases Federalism vs. central authority Debate on the limits of federal power. Ongoing discussions about state rights. State sovereignty vs. federal authority. Whether the federal government can require state officials to enforce federal gun control laws. |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Analysis of legal outcome.
Summary of legal outcome analysis. Summary of legal outcome. Limited federal enforcement powers Federal law was deemed unconstitutional. Federal law was found unconstitutional. Outcome affected state-federal relations. |
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
Anti-commandeering doctrine.
|
| gptkbp:legal_relevance |
Relevant to discussions on state vs. federal power.
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
Debate on federalism
Tenth Amendment implications Analysis of federalism. |
| gptkbp:legislation |
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
|
| gptkbp:majority_opinion_summary |
Federal government cannot commandeer state resources.
|
| gptkbp:material |
Involved challenges to federal gun control measures.
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
The Court held that the federal government cannot compel state officers to execute federal laws.
Unconstitutional mandate The Court ruled in favor of Printz. |
| gptkbp:precedent |
gptkb:New_York_v._United_States
Influenced future gun control cases State autonomy in federal mandates Precedent for future cases. Limits on federal authority over state governments Cited in discussions of state sovereignty. Limits on federal government power. Precedent for state rights. Limits on federal authority over state governments. |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia
5-4 |
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Support for state rights
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:United_States_v._Lopez
gptkb:Mack_v._United_States Printz v. United States cited in later rulings |
| gptkbp:scholarly_analysis |
Federalism in the United States
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Limits on federal power over states
Important case in the context of federalism. |
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:William_Rehnquist
gptkb:William_H._Rehnquist |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
4
|