Supreme Court decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden
E291888
The Supreme Court decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden was a 1980 ruling that required proof of discriminatory intent in voting rights cases, prompting Congress to amend the Voting Rights Act in 1982 to restore a results-based standard.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T2723598 — 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 decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden Context triple: [Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982, inResponseTo, Supreme Court decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden]
-
A.
Duncan v. Louisiana
Duncan v. Louisiana is a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in criminal cases applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
B.
Gebhart v. Belton
Gebhart v. Belton was a landmark Delaware school segregation case whose rulings in favor of Black students became one of the four consolidated cases decided in Brown v. Board of Education, contributing to the Supreme Court’s rejection of “separate but equal” in public education.
-
C.
Edwards v. South Carolina
Edwards v. South Carolina is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned the breach-of-the-peace convictions of civil rights demonstrators, affirming their First Amendment rights to peaceful protest and assembly.
-
D.
Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia
The Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) was an early and controversial ruling that allowed a citizen of one state to sue another state in federal court, prompting the swift adoption of the Eleventh Amendment to limit such suits.
-
E.
Reynolds v. Sims decision
The Reynolds v. Sims decision is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established the “one person, one vote” principle by requiring state legislative districts to be roughly equal in population 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: Supreme Court decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden Target entity description: The Supreme Court decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden was a 1980 ruling that required proof of discriminatory intent in voting rights cases, prompting Congress to amend the Voting Rights Act in 1982 to restore a results-based standard.
-
A.
Duncan v. Louisiana
Duncan v. Louisiana is a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in criminal cases applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
B.
Gebhart v. Belton
Gebhart v. Belton was a landmark Delaware school segregation case whose rulings in favor of Black students became one of the four consolidated cases decided in Brown v. Board of Education, contributing to the Supreme Court’s rejection of “separate but equal” in public education.
-
C.
Edwards v. South Carolina
Edwards v. South Carolina is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned the breach-of-the-peace convictions of civil rights demonstrators, affirming their First Amendment rights to peaceful protest and assembly.
-
D.
Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia
The Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) was an early and controversial ruling that allowed a citizen of one state to sue another state in federal court, prompting the swift adoption of the Eleventh Amendment to limit such suits.
-
E.
Reynolds v. Sims decision
The Reynolds v. Sims decision is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established the “one person, one vote” principle by requiring state legislative districts to be roughly equal in population under the Equal Protection Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (37)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
voting rights case ⓘ |
| affected | interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prior to 1982 ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
voting rights law ⓘ |
| citation | 446 U.S. 55 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
surface form:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
|
| constitutionalRightInvolved | right to vote free from racial discrimination ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1980-04-22 ⓘ |
| held |
A showing of discriminatory effect alone is insufficient to prove a constitutional violation in voting rights cases
ⓘ
Proof of discriminatory intent is required to establish a violation of the Fifteenth Amendment in voting rights cases ⓘ |
| influenced | Congress to adopt a results-based standard in the Voting Rights Act ⓘ |
| issue |
Whether at-large election systems that dilute minority voting strength violate the Fifteenth Amendment without proof of discriminatory intent
ⓘ
Whether discriminatory effect alone can establish a constitutional violation in voting rights cases ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| legalStandardAnnounced | discriminatory intent requirement for certain voting rights claims ⓘ |
| locationOfDispute | Mobile, Alabama ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Potter Stewart ⓘ |
| overriddenInPartBy | 1982 amendments to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ⓘ |
| party |
City of Mobile
ⓘ
John L. Bolden ⓘ |
| precedentFor | intent requirement in certain equal protection and Fifteenth Amendment voting claims ⓘ |
| prompted | 1982 amendments to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
discriminatory effect
ⓘ
discriminatory intent ⓘ results test in voting rights law ⓘ |
| relatedLegislation |
1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act
ⓘ
Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ |
| result | Judgment for the City of Mobile ⓘ |
| standardContrastedWith | results-based standard for vote dilution under amended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ⓘ |
| subsequentDevelopment | Congress amended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in 1982 to adopt a results test ⓘ |
| subsequentInterpretationBy | Thornburg v. Gingles ⓘ |
| topic |
at-large election systems
ⓘ
vote dilution ⓘ |
| voteSplit | plurality decision ⓘ |
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 decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden Description of subject: The Supreme Court decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden was a 1980 ruling that required proof of discriminatory intent in voting rights cases, prompting Congress to amend the Voting Rights Act in 1982 to restore a results-based standard.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982
→
inResponseTo
→
Supreme Court decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden
ⓘ