Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper
E15222
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a state residency requirement for bar admission as unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper canonical | 4 |
| Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985) | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T132269 — 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: Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper Context triple: [Privileges and Immunities Clause, keyCase, Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper]
-
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.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
C.
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.
-
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.
New York v. United States (1992)
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.
- 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: Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper Target entity description: Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a state residency requirement for bar admission as unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
-
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.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
C.
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.
-
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.
New York v. United States (1992)
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.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (43)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Privileges and Immunities Clause case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ |
| affectedGroup | nonresident attorneys seeking bar admission ⓘ |
| areaOfImpact |
interstate practice of law
ⓘ
professional licensing ⓘ |
| barAdmissionRuleChallenged | New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule requiring state residency for bar admission ⓘ |
| barredPractice | state residency requirement for admission to the New Hampshire bar ⓘ |
| citation | 470 U.S. 274 ⓘ |
| constitutionalBasisOfChallenge |
Privileges and Immunities Clause
ⓘ
surface form:
Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV
|
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution
ⓘ
surface form:
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution
|
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1985-03-04 ⓘ |
| decisionType | plenary decision ⓘ |
| dissentingJustice |
William H. Rehnquist
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice William H. Rehnquist
|
| docketNumber | 84-12 ⓘ |
| holding |
A state may not condition bar admission on state residency under the Privileges and Immunities Clause
ⓘ
New Hampshire’s residency requirement for bar admission violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause ⓘ |
| issue | Whether a state can restrict bar admission to residents of that state ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | United States federal question jurisdiction ⓘ |
| languageOfOpinion | English ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
Privileges and Immunities Clause
ⓘ
bar admission ⓘ constitutional law ⓘ state residency requirements ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Lewis F. Powell Jr.
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.
|
| originatingCourt | Supreme Court of New Hampshire ⓘ |
| pageInUnitedStatesReports | 274 ⓘ |
| partyTypeInvolved |
individual attorney applicant
ⓘ
state supreme court ⓘ |
| petitioner | Supreme Court of New Hampshire ⓘ |
| precedentStatus |
binding on all lower federal courts
ⓘ
binding on state courts on questions of federal law ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Barnard v. Thorstenn
ⓘ
Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman ⓘ |
| relatedDoctrine | substantial reason test under the Privileges and Immunities Clause ⓘ |
| respondent | Kathryn A. Piper ⓘ |
| result | New Hampshire residency requirement for bar admission invalidated ⓘ |
| stateInvolved | New Hampshire ⓘ |
| volumeInUnitedStatesReports | 470 ⓘ |
| vote | 8-1 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1985 ⓘ |
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: Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper Description of subject: Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a state residency requirement for bar admission as unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
Referenced by (5)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden
→
relatedCase
→
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper
ⓘ
this entity surface form:
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985)