Triple

Given a phrase, classify it is english named entity (e.g., persons, organizations, works of art) in Latin script, or not (e.g., literals, dates, URLs, verbose phrases). For disambiguation, the statement where the phrase occurs as object is also given. Please return a JSON object with `phrase` (string, the phrase being analyzed) and `is_ne` (boolean, indicating whether the phrase is a Named Entity).

Phrase: Marbury v. Madison | Statement: [Judiciary Act of 1789, section13HeldUnconstitutionalIn, Marbury v. Madison]

Target entity: Marbury v. Madison
Context triple: [Judiciary Act of 1789, section13HeldUnconstitutionalIn, Marbury v. Madison]

• A. Marbury v. Madison chosen
  Marbury v. Madison is the landmark 1803 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review, empowering federal courts to strike down laws that violate the Constitution.
• B. Gibbons v. Ogden
  Gibbons v. Ogden was an 1824 U.S. Supreme Court case that broadly affirmed federal power over interstate commerce, significantly strengthening national authority relative to the states.
• C. McCulloch v. Maryland
  McCulloch v. Maryland is an 1819 U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed federal supremacy over the states and upheld the implied powers of Congress under the Constitution.
• D. 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.
• E. Judiciary Act of 1789
  The Judiciary Act of 1789 was a foundational U.S. federal statute that organized the national court system, defined the structure and jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, and established key judicial procedures under the new Constitution.
• F. None of above.
• G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

Target predicate: section13HeldUnconstitutionalIn
Context triple: [Judiciary Act of 1789, section13HeldUnconstitutionalIn, Marbury v. Madison]

• A. constitutionalChallenge
  Indicates a legal action or argument asserting that a law, policy, or governmental act violates a constitution and should be reviewed or invalidated.
• B. concurringJustice
  Indicates that a justice agrees with the court’s judgment or outcome but writes or joins a separate concurring opinion expressing different or additional reasoning.
• C. constitutionalProvisionInterpreted
  Indicates that a specific constitutional provision has been interpreted or given meaning by a judicial or authoritative body in relation to a particular context or case.
• D. upheldBy
  Indicates that one entity is supported, maintained, or validated by another, often through approval, enforcement, or confirmation of its validity.
• E. constitutionalNumber
  Indicates that an entity has a specific number or count defined or constrained by a constitution or foundational governing document.
• F. None of above. chosen