Bush v. Vera
E422402
Bush v. Vera is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied and extended the racial gerrymandering principles from Shaw v. Reno to invalidate certain Texas congressional districts drawn predominantly on the basis of race.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Bush v. Vera canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T4229558 — 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: Bush v. Vera Context triple: [Shaw v. Reno, precedentFor, Bush v. Vera]
-
A.
Ray v. Blair
Ray v. Blair is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a state's authority to require presidential electors to pledge support for their party's nominees as a condition of appointment.
-
B.
Branch v. Texas
Branch v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the constitutionality and application of the death penalty in the wake of the landmark Furman v. Georgia decision.
-
C.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
-
D.
Van Orden v. Perry
Van Orden v. Perry is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument on Texas State Capitol grounds against an Establishment Clause challenge.
-
E.
Clinton v. Jones
Clinton v. Jones is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a sitting president is not immune from civil litigation for unofficial acts committed before taking office.
- 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: Bush v. Vera Target entity description: Bush v. Vera is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied and extended the racial gerrymandering principles from Shaw v. Reno to invalidate certain Texas congressional districts drawn predominantly on the basis of race.
-
A.
Ray v. Blair
Ray v. Blair is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a state's authority to require presidential electors to pledge support for their party's nominees as a condition of appointment.
-
B.
Branch v. Texas
Branch v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the constitutionality and application of the death penalty in the wake of the landmark Furman v. Georgia decision.
-
C.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
-
D.
Van Orden v. Perry
Van Orden v. Perry is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument on Texas State Capitol grounds against an Establishment Clause challenge.
-
E.
Clinton v. Jones
Clinton v. Jones is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a sitting president is not immune from civil litigation for unofficial acts committed before taking office.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
racial gerrymandering case ⓘ voting rights case ⓘ |
| affects | Texas congressional district map of the early 1990s ⓘ |
| appliesPrecedent | Shaw v. Reno NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| appliesStandardOfReview | strict scrutiny ⓘ |
| aroseInState | Texas NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| belongsToCategory |
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court cases on racial gerrymandering ⓘ |
| concernsSubject |
Equal Protection Clause
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ congressional redistricting ⓘ racial gerrymandering ⓘ |
| concernsTimePeriod | post-1990 census redistricting cycle ⓘ |
| decisionType | plurality decision ⓘ |
| extendsPrinciplesOf | Shaw v. Reno NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasChiefJustice | William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasCitation | 517 U.S. 952 ⓘ |
| hasConcurrenceBy |
Anthony M. Kennedy
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED ⓘ Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasCountry |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| hasCourt | Supreme Court of the United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasDecisionDate | 1996 ⓘ |
| hasDissentBy |
David H. Souter
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg NERFINISHED ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasDocketNumber | 94-805 ⓘ |
| hasLegalArea |
civil rights law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ election law ⓘ |
| hasMajorityOpinionBy | Sandra Day O’Connor NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasPetitioner | George W. Bush, Governor of Texas, et al. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasPluralityOpinionBy | Sandra Day O’Connor NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasRespondent | Alma Vera, et al. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holds |
certain Texas congressional districts were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders
ⓘ
race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing congressional districts absent narrow tailoring to a compelling interest ⓘ |
| involvesIssue |
Voting Rights Act compliance as a compelling interest
ⓘ
majority-minority districts ⓘ strict scrutiny review of race-based districting ⓘ |
| isCitedFor |
interaction between the Voting Rights Act and constitutional equal protection
ⓘ
interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause in redistricting ⓘ limits on race-based redistricting ⓘ |
| legalRule |
compliance with the Voting Rights Act does not automatically justify race-predominant districting
ⓘ
districts drawn predominantly on the basis of race must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest ⓘ |
| originatedFrom | United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas NERFINISHED ⓘ |
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: Bush v. Vera Description of subject: Bush v. Vera is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied and extended the racial gerrymandering principles from Shaw v. Reno to invalidate certain Texas congressional districts drawn predominantly on the basis of race.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.