Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co.

E193724

Supreme Court footnote legal doctrine

Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co. is a famous passage in a 1938 Supreme Court opinion suggesting that certain types of legislation—especially those affecting discrete and insular minorities or fundamental rights—may warrant more rigorous judicial scrutiny than ordinary economic regulation.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (3)

Label	Occurrences
Carolene Products Footnote Four	1
Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co. canonical	1
Stone’s Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co.	1

Statements (48)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	Supreme Court footnote ⓘ legal doctrine ⓘ
addresses	legislation affecting discrete and insular minorities ⓘ legislation directed at religious, national, or racial minorities ⓘ legislation interfering with fundamental rights ⓘ legislation restricting freedom of speech ⓘ legislation restricting freedom of the press ⓘ legislation restricting political processes ⓘ legislation restricting rights of political organization ⓘ legislation restricting the right to vote ⓘ
appearsIn	majority opinion of United States v. Carolene Products Co. ⓘ
associatedWithCase	United States v. Carolene Products Co. ⓘ
authoredBy	Justice Harlan F. Stone ⓘ surface form: Justice Harlan Fiske Stone
characterizedAs	cornerstone of modern judicial scrutiny doctrine ⓘ foundational text for modern equal protection analysis ⓘ
citedAs	Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co. self-linksurface differs ⓘ surface form: Carolene Products Footnote Four Footnote 4 ⓘ
contrastsWith	deferential review of economic regulation ⓘ
country	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
date	1938 ⓘ
frequentlyDiscussedIn	U.S. constitutional law casebooks ⓘ law review articles ⓘ
historicalSignificance	laid groundwork for post–New Deal constitutional jurisprudence ⓘ marked shift from Lochner-era economic substantive due process toward deference on economic regulation ⓘ
influenced	development of tiers of scrutiny in U.S. constitutional law ⓘ intermediate scrutiny doctrine ⓘ rational basis with bite doctrine ⓘ strict scrutiny doctrine ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
legalArea	constitutional law ⓘ equal protection ⓘ judicial review ⓘ substantive due process ⓘ
locatedInDocument	304 U.S. 144 (1938) ⓘ
opinionAuthor	Justice Harlan F. Stone ⓘ surface form: Justice Harlan Fiske Stone
partOf	United States v. Carolene Products Co. ⓘ
proposes	more searching judicial scrutiny for certain legislation ⓘ
relatedConcept	discrete and insular minorities ⓘ fundamental rights ⓘ political process theory ⓘ presumption of constitutionality ⓘ representation-reinforcing judicial review ⓘ
section	third paragraph of the footnote lists special conditions for heightened review ⓘ
suggests	more exacting judicial scrutiny for laws interfering with specific constitutional prohibitions ⓘ more exacting judicial scrutiny for laws restricting political processes ⓘ more exacting judicial scrutiny for laws targeting minorities ⓘ presumption of constitutionality may be narrowed in certain cases ⓘ

Referenced by (3)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Justice Harlan F. Stone → knownFor → Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co. ⓘ

subject surface form: Harlan F. Stone

Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co. → citedAs → Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co. self-linksurface differs ⓘ

this entity surface form: Carolene Products Footnote Four

Justice Stone → knownFor → Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co. ⓘ

subject surface form: Harlan Fiske Stone

this entity surface form: Stone’s Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co.