Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council

E2548

Supremacy Clause case United States Supreme Court case federal preemption case

Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a Massachusetts law restricting state business with Burma was preempted by federal sanctions under the Supremacy Clause.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

All labels observed (1)

Label	Occurrences
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council canonical	4

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T33059 — 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: Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council
Context triple: [Supremacy Clause, interpretedInCase, Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council]

A. Helvering v. Davis
Helvering v. Davis is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Social Security Act and broadly affirmed federal power to tax and spend for the general welfare.
B. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal unemployment compensation provisions of the Social Security Act, affirming broad congressional power to tax and spend for the general welfare.
C. Headquarters Agreement between the United Nations and the United States
The Headquarters Agreement between the United Nations and the United States is the treaty that establishes the legal status, privileges, and obligations governing the UN’s presence and operations at its main headquarters in New York City.
D. Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade was a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized a constitutional right to abortion, profoundly shaping American law and politics until it was overturned in 2022.
E. United States v. Virginia (1996) majority opinion
The United States v. Virginia (1996) majority opinion is a landmark Supreme Court decision, authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that struck down the Virginia Military Institute’s male-only admissions policy as unconstitutional sex discrimination under the Equal Protection 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: Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council
Target entity description: Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a Massachusetts law restricting state business with Burma was preempted by federal sanctions under the Supremacy Clause.

A. Helvering v. Davis
Helvering v. Davis is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Social Security Act and broadly affirmed federal power to tax and spend for the general welfare.
B. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal unemployment compensation provisions of the Social Security Act, affirming broad congressional power to tax and spend for the general welfare.
C. Headquarters Agreement between the United Nations and the United States
The Headquarters Agreement between the United Nations and the United States is the treaty that establishes the legal status, privileges, and obligations governing the UN’s presence and operations at its main headquarters in New York City.
D. Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade was a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized a constitutional right to abortion, profoundly shaping American law and politics until it was overturned in 2022.
E. United States v. Virginia (1996) majority opinion
The United States v. Virginia (1996) majority opinion is a landmark Supreme Court decision, authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that struck down the Virginia Military Institute’s male-only admissions policy as unconstitutional sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (44)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	Supremacy Clause case ⓘ United States Supreme Court case ⓘ federal preemption case ⓘ
areaOfLaw	constitutional law ⓘ federal courts and jurisdiction ⓘ foreign relations law ⓘ government contracts ⓘ
chiefJusticeAtDecision	William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
citation	120 S. Ct. 2288 ⓘ 147 L. Ed. 2d 352 ⓘ 530 U.S. 363 ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	Article VI ⓘ surface form: Article VI of the United States Constitution Supremacy Clause ⓘ
countryConcerned	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	2000-06-19 ⓘ
decisionType	unanimous decision ⓘ
docketNumber	99-474 ⓘ
foreignCountryConcerned	Myanmar ⓘ surface form: Burma Myanmar ⓘ
holding	Massachusetts law restricting state business with Burma is preempted by federal law ⓘ federal Burma sanctions statute occupies the field with respect to sanctions against Burma ⓘ state Burma law conflicted with federal Burma sanctions regime ⓘ
impact	clarified preemption analysis in the context of foreign sanctions ⓘ limited state authority to impose independent sanctions on foreign countries ⓘ
jurisdictionBasis	appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ⓘ
legalIssue	Supremacy Clause ⓘ surface form: Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution federal preemption ⓘ foreign affairs power ⓘ state sanctions against foreign nations ⓘ
opinionAuthor	David H. Souter ⓘ
originatingJurisdiction	Massachusetts ⓘ surface form: Commonwealth of Massachusetts
petitioner	Philip W. Crosby, Treasurer and Receiver General of Massachusetts ⓘ
relatedCase	American Insurance Assn. v. Garamendi ⓘ Hines v. Davidowitz ⓘ Zschernig v. Miller ⓘ
relatedDoctrine	conflict preemption ⓘ foreign affairs preemption ⓘ obstacle preemption ⓘ
respondent	National Foreign Trade Council ⓘ
statuteInterpreted	Massachusetts Burma law ⓘ federal Burma sanctions statute ⓘ
subjectMatter	foreign economic sanctions ⓘ state procurement law ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (4)

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

Supremacy Clause → interpretedInCase → Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council ⓘ

Zschernig v. Miller → relatedCase → Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council ⓘ

Philip W. Crosby, Treasurer and Receiver General of Massachusetts → notableWork → Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council ⓘ

subject surface form: Philip W. Crosby

Philip W. Crosby, Treasurer and Receiver General of Massachusetts → participantIn → Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council ⓘ