New York v. United States (1992)
E13964
New York v. United States (1992) is a landmark Supreme Court case that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel states to enact or enforce federal regulatory programs, reinforcing the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle.
All labels observed (4)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| New York v. United States (1992) canonical | 8 |
| New York v. United States | 1 |
| New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) | 1 |
| New York, et al. v. United States, et al. | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T125904 — 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: New York v. United States (1992) Context triple: [Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, keyCase, New York v. United States (1992)]
-
A.
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.
-
B.
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.
-
C.
United States v. Lopez
United States v. Lopez is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked the first time in decades the Court struck down a federal law for exceeding Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, signaling a revival of limits on federal regulatory authority.
-
D.
United States v. Comstock
United States v. Comstock is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s authority to civilly commit mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoners beyond their release date under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause.
-
E.
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.
- 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: New York v. United States (1992) Target entity description: New York v. United States (1992) is a landmark Supreme Court case that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel states to enact or enforce federal regulatory programs, reinforcing the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle.
-
A.
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.
-
B.
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.
-
C.
United States v. Lopez
United States v. Lopez is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked the first time in decades the Court struck down a federal law for exceeding Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, signaling a revival of limits on federal regulatory authority.
-
D.
United States v. Comstock
United States v. Comstock is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s authority to civilly commit mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoners beyond their release date under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause.
-
E.
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.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (44)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Tenth Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ federalism case ⓘ landmark Supreme Court case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
federalism ⓘ separation of powers ⓘ |
| category |
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court cases on federalism ⓘ |
| challengedProvision | take-title provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 ⓘ |
| chiefJusticeAtTime | William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| citation | 505 U.S. 144 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Commerce Clause
ⓘ
surface form:
Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution
Taxing and Spending Clause ⓘ
surface form:
Spending Clause of the United States Constitution
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1992 ⓘ |
| doctrineEstablished | modern anti-commandeering doctrine ⓘ |
| fullCaseName |
New York v. United States (1992)
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
New York, et al. v. United States, et al.
|
| holding |
Congress may not compel states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program
ⓘ
the federal government cannot commandeer the legislative processes of the states ⓘ |
| impact |
limited Congress’s ability to force states to administer federal programs
ⓘ
strengthened state sovereignty against federal mandates ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
federal judiciary of the United States
ⓘ
surface form:
United States federal courts
|
| languageOfProceeding | English ⓘ |
| laterCitedIn |
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018)
ⓘ
Printz v. United States ⓘ
surface form:
Printz v. United States (1997)
|
| legalIssue |
Tenth Amendment limits on federal authority
ⓘ
anti-commandeering doctrine ⓘ scope of federal power under the Commerce Clause ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Sandra Day O’Connor
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
|
| partyType |
federal government as defendant
ⓘ
state as plaintiff ⓘ |
| petitioner |
U.S. state of New York
ⓘ
surface form:
State of New York
|
| principle |
Congress may encourage but not compel state regulation
ⓘ
federal government must regulate individuals directly rather than commandeer states ⓘ |
| reasoning |
Tenth Amendment confirms that powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states or the people
ⓘ
commandeering blurs political accountability between state and federal officials ⓘ |
| relatedStatute | Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 ⓘ |
| respondent | United States of America ⓘ |
| result |
other incentive provisions of the Act upheld
ⓘ
take-title provision held unconstitutional ⓘ |
| voteSplit | 6–3 ⓘ |
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: New York v. United States (1992) Description of subject: New York v. United States (1992) is a landmark Supreme Court case that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel states to enact or enforce federal regulatory programs, reinforcing the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle.
Referenced by (11)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
New York v. United States (1992)
→
fullCaseName
→
New York v. United States (1992)
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
this entity surface form:
New York, et al. v. United States, et al.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985
→
associatedCourtCase
→
New York v. United States (1992)
ⓘ
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985
→
challengedIn
→
New York v. United States (1992)
ⓘ
this entity surface form:
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018)
→
relatedPrecedent
→
New York v. United States (1992)
ⓘ
subject surface form:
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
Jay Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana, et al. v. United States
→
relatedCase
→
New York v. United States (1992)
ⓘ
this entity surface form:
New York v. United States
The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act’s provisions prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling schemes violate the anti-commandeering rule of the Tenth Amendment.
→
relatedPrecedent
→
New York v. United States (1992)
ⓘ
subject surface form:
The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act’s provisions prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling schemes violate the anti-commandeering rule of the Tenth Amendment
subject surface form:
PASPA was struck down as unconstitutional
anti-commandeering doctrine in United States constitutional law
→
articulatedIn
→
New York v. United States (1992)
ⓘ
subject surface form:
anti-commandeering doctrine
anti-commandeering doctrine in United States constitutional law
→
firstClearlyRecognizedIn
→
New York v. United States (1992)
ⓘ
subject surface form:
anti-commandeering doctrine
anti-commandeering doctrine in United States constitutional law
→
hasKeyCase
→
New York v. United States (1992)
ⓘ
subject surface form:
anti-commandeering doctrine