Hollingsworth v. Perry
E393324
Hollingsworth v. Perry was a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that effectively restored same-sex marriage in California by dismissing an appeal over Proposition 8 for lack of standing.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Hollingsworth v. Perry canonical | 3 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3822015 — 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: Hollingsworth v. Perry Context triple: [October Term 2012, includesCase, Hollingsworth v. Perry]
-
A.
United States v. Windsor
United States v. Windsor is a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act, advancing federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
-
B.
Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges is the landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide by ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
-
C.
Lawrence v. Texas (in part)
Lawrence v. Texas (in part) is a landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down laws criminalizing consensual same-sex intimacy, expanding constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.
-
D.
DeBoer v. Snyder
DeBoer v. Snyder was a federal court case challenging Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban that became one of the key cases consolidated into the landmark Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
-
E.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that closely held for-profit corporations can claim religious exemptions from certain federal regulations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
- 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: Hollingsworth v. Perry Target entity description: Hollingsworth v. Perry was a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that effectively restored same-sex marriage in California by dismissing an appeal over Proposition 8 for lack of standing.
-
A.
United States v. Windsor
United States v. Windsor is a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act, advancing federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
-
B.
Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges is the landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide by ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
-
C.
Lawrence v. Texas (in part)
Lawrence v. Texas (in part) is a landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down laws criminalizing consensual same-sex intimacy, expanding constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.
-
D.
DeBoer v. Snyder
DeBoer v. Snyder was a federal court case challenging Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban that became one of the key cases consolidated into the landmark Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
-
E.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that closely held for-profit corporations can claim religious exemptions from certain federal regulations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (50)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark case ⓘ |
| appealsCourt | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ⓘ |
| citation |
133 S. Ct. 2652
ⓘ
186 L. Ed. 2d 768 ⓘ 570 U.S. 693 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInvoked | Article III of the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| country | United States of America ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2013-06-26 ⓘ |
| defendant |
Dennis Hollingsworth
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
ProtectMarriage.com ⓘ |
| defendantRole | official proponents of Proposition 8 ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy | Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ |
| dissentJoinedBy |
Clarence Thomas
ⓘ
Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 12-144 ⓘ |
| effect |
Effectively restored same-sex marriage in California
ⓘ
Left in place the district court ruling striking down Proposition 8 ⓘ |
| holding |
Proponents of California Proposition 8 lacked Article III standing to appeal the district court’s order
ⓘ
The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits of the case ⓘ |
| issue |
constitutionality of California Proposition 8
ⓘ
standing of initiative proponents to appeal federal court decisions ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| lawInvolved |
California Proposition 8
ⓘ
Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
surface form:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
|
| legalSubject |
Article III standing
ⓘ
ballot initiatives ⓘ same-sex marriage ⓘ |
| majorityJoinedBy |
Antonin Scalia
ⓘ
Elena Kagan ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
John G. Roberts Jr.
ⓘ
surface form:
John G. Roberts, Jr.
|
| originatingCourt | United States District Court for the Northern District of California ⓘ |
| originatingJudge | Vaughn R. Walker NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| plaintiff |
Jeff Zarrillo
ⓘ
Kristin Perry ⓘ Paul Katami ⓘ Sandy Stier ⓘ |
| priorCase |
Perry v. Brown
ⓘ
Perry v. Schwarzenegger ⓘ |
| proceduralPosture | appeal from the Ninth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Obergefell v. Hodges
ⓘ
United States v. Windsor ⓘ |
| resultOnMerits | no Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage ⓘ |
| stateInvolved |
California, United States
ⓘ
surface form:
California
|
| term | October Term 2012 ⓘ |
| topic |
LGBT rights in the United States
ⓘ
marriage equality in California ⓘ |
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: Hollingsworth v. Perry Description of subject: Hollingsworth v. Perry was a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that effectively restored same-sex marriage in California by dismissing an appeal over Proposition 8 for lack of standing.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
subject surface form:
United States v. Windsor