South Dakota v. Dole
E18538
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.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| South Dakota v. Dole canonical | 3 |
| South Dakota v. Dole (1987) | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T125943 — 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: South Dakota v. Dole Context triple: [Taxing and Spending Clause, significantCase, South Dakota v. Dole]
-
A.
Craig v. Boren
Craig v. Boren is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that established intermediate scrutiny as the standard for evaluating gender-based classifications under the Equal Protection Clause.
-
B.
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.
-
C.
Katzenbach v. McClung
Katzenbach v. McClung is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in local restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
-
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.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
- 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: South Dakota v. Dole Target entity description: 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.
-
A.
Craig v. Boren
Craig v. Boren is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that established intermediate scrutiny as the standard for evaluating gender-based classifications under the Equal Protection Clause.
-
B.
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.
-
C.
Katzenbach v. McClung
Katzenbach v. McClung is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in local restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
-
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.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (50)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
federal courts case ⓘ landmark case ⓘ |
| appliesConstitutionalProvision |
Taxing and Spending Clause
ⓘ
surface form:
Spending Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
surface form:
Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Twenty-First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
administrative law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ federalism ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1987-04-28 ⓘ |
| chiefJusticeAtDecision | William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| citation |
107 S. Ct. 2793
ⓘ
483 U.S. 203 ⓘ 97 L. Ed. 2d 171 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy | William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| decidedBy | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1987-06-23 ⓘ |
| dissentBy | Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 86-260 ⓘ |
| establishesTest | limits on Congress’s use of the spending power to encourage state action ⓘ |
| hasJurisdiction | United States federal law ⓘ |
| holding |
Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds to further broad policy objectives
ⓘ
Congress’s conditioning of a portion of federal highway funds on adoption of a minimum drinking age of 21 is constitutional ⓘ The financial inducement offered by Congress was not so coercive as to pass the point at which pressure turns into compulsion ⓘ |
| joinedMajority |
Antonin Scalia
ⓘ
Byron R. White ⓘ Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ Thurgood Marshall ⓘ |
| languageOfProceeding | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
surface form:
Tenth Amendment federalism
Twenty-First Amendment and alcohol regulation ⓘ conditional federal grants to states ⓘ scope of the federal spending power ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| petitioner |
South Dakota
ⓘ
surface form:
State of South Dakota
|
| principle |
conditions on federal grants must be in pursuit of the general welfare
ⓘ
conditions on federal grants must be related to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs ⓘ conditions on federal grants must be unambiguous ⓘ conditions on federal grants must not violate other constitutional provisions ⓘ financial inducement may not be so coercive as to compel state compliance ⓘ |
| relatedStatute | National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 ⓘ |
| respondent |
Elizabeth Dole
ⓘ
surface form:
Elizabeth H. Dole, Secretary of Transportation
United States Department of Transportation ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
federal highway funds
ⓘ
minimum legal drinking age ⓘ |
| vote | 7-2 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1987 ⓘ |
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: South Dakota v. Dole Description of subject: 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.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
South Dakota v. Dole (1987)