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: Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) | Statement: [42 U.S.C. § 1983, interpretedBy, Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)]

Target entity: Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)
Context triple: [42 U.S.C. § 1983, interpretedBy, Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)]

• A. Michigan v. Tucker
  Michigan v. Tucker is a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the exclusionary rule’s application to statements obtained without full Miranda warnings, holding that derivative evidence from such statements could still be admissible.
• B. Maryland v. Wirtz
  Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
• C. South Dakota v. Dole
  South Dakota v. Dole is a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to condition federal highway funds on states adopting a minimum drinking age of 21, helping define the scope of the federal spending power.
• D. Near v. Minnesota
  Near v. Minnesota is a landmark 1931 U.S. Supreme Court decision that applied First Amendment free press protections to the states and established a strong presumption against prior restraint by government.
• E. Brandenburg v. Ohio
  Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
• F. None of above. chosen
• G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

Generate a one-sentence description of the target entity. 
You are given a context triple in the form (subject, predicate, object), where the object is the target entity. 
# Instructions
Use the triple to infer relevant information about the entity. Describe the entity based on what is most defining, well-known. 
Avoid repeating the information from the triple, unless really essential.
# Response Format
Return only the sentence: "Description: [one-sentence description of the target entity]"

Entity: Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)
Triple: [42 U.S.C. § 1983, interpretedBy, Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)]

Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” subject to damages liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Target entity: Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)
Target entity description: Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” subject to damages liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

• A. Michigan v. Tucker
  Michigan v. Tucker is a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the exclusionary rule’s application to statements obtained without full Miranda warnings, holding that derivative evidence from such statements could still be admissible.
• B. Maryland v. Wirtz
  Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
• C. South Dakota v. Dole
  South Dakota v. Dole is a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to condition federal highway funds on states adopting a minimum drinking age of 21, helping define the scope of the federal spending power.
• D. Near v. Minnesota
  Near v. Minnesota is a landmark 1931 U.S. Supreme Court decision that applied First Amendment free press protections to the states and established a strong presumption against prior restraint by government.
• E. Brandenburg v. Ohio
  Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
• F. None of above. chosen