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: Washington v. Davis | Statement: [Equal Protection Clause, basisFor, Washington v. Davis]

Target entity: Washington v. Davis
Context triple: [Equal Protection Clause, basisFor, Washington v. Davis]

• A. 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.
• 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. Gebhart v. Belton
  Gebhart v. Belton was a landmark Delaware school segregation case whose rulings in favor of Black students became one of the four consolidated cases decided in Brown v. Board of Education, contributing to the Supreme Court’s rejection of “separate but equal” in public education.
• D. 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.
• E. Yick Wo v. Hopkins
  Yick Wo v. Hopkins is an 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially discriminatory enforcement of a facially neutral law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 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: Washington v. Davis
Triple: [Equal Protection Clause, basisFor, Washington v. Davis]

Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.

Target entity: Washington v. Davis
Target entity description: Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.

• A. 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.
• 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. Gebhart v. Belton
  Gebhart v. Belton was a landmark Delaware school segregation case whose rulings in favor of Black students became one of the four consolidated cases decided in Brown v. Board of Education, contributing to the Supreme Court’s rejection of “separate but equal” in public education.
• D. 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.
• E. Yick Wo v. Hopkins
  Yick Wo v. Hopkins is an 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially discriminatory enforcement of a facially neutral law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• F. None of above. chosen