Crowell v. Benson
E615010
Crowell v. Benson is a 1932 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the constitutional limits of administrative agencies’ fact-finding powers and the scope of judicial review over administrative adjudications.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Crowell v. Benson canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T6737224 — 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: Crowell v. Benson Context triple: [United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court, includesCase, Crowell v. Benson]
-
A.
Downes v. Bidwell
Downes v. Bidwell is a 1901 U.S. Supreme Court case that helped establish the "Insular Cases" doctrine, holding that full constitutional rights do not automatically extend to all territories under American control.
-
B.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
C.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
D.
Luther v. Borden
Luther v. Borden is an 1849 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the "political question" doctrine by holding that the determination of a state's legitimate government under the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause is a matter for Congress, not the courts.
-
E.
Sherbert v. Verner
Sherbert v. Verner is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case that strengthened protections for religious liberty by requiring strict scrutiny of government actions that substantially burden individuals’ religious practices.
- 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: Crowell v. Benson Target entity description: Crowell v. Benson is a 1932 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the constitutional limits of administrative agencies’ fact-finding powers and the scope of judicial review over administrative adjudications.
-
A.
Downes v. Bidwell
Downes v. Bidwell is a 1901 U.S. Supreme Court case that helped establish the "Insular Cases" doctrine, holding that full constitutional rights do not automatically extend to all territories under American control.
-
B.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
C.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
D.
Luther v. Borden
Luther v. Borden is an 1849 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the "political question" doctrine by holding that the determination of a state's legitimate government under the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause is a matter for Congress, not the courts.
-
E.
Sherbert v. Verner
Sherbert v. Verner is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case that strengthened protections for religious liberty by requiring strict scrutiny of government actions that substantially burden individuals’ religious practices.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
administrative law case ⓘ constitutional law case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
administrative law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ federal courts ⓘ |
| characterizedAs | foundational case on constitutional limits of administrative adjudication ⓘ |
| chiefJusticeAtDecision | Charles Evans Hughes NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| citation | 285 U.S. 22 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Article III of the United States Constitution
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1932 ⓘ |
| hasInfluenceOn |
development of modern administrative law
ⓘ
later Supreme Court cases on Article III and administrative tribunals ⓘ scope of judicial review over agency adjudications ⓘ |
| holding |
Administrative findings of ordinary or non-jurisdictional facts may be treated as final if supported by evidence and if judicial review is available for questions of law and jurisdiction.
ⓘ
Article III courts must retain the power to make independent determinations of constitutional facts and jurisdictional facts. ⓘ Congress may assign initial fact-finding in certain cases to administrative agencies or non-Article III tribunals under limited conditions. ⓘ The use of administrative agencies for initial adjudication does not necessarily violate Article III if adequate judicial review is preserved. ⓘ |
| involvedStatute | Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| issue |
Whether Congress could authorize an administrative agency to make binding findings of fact in compensation cases subject to limited judicial review.
ⓘ
Whether the delegation of adjudicatory authority to an administrative officer violated Article III. ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| languageOfCase | English ⓘ |
| legalPrinciple |
compatibility of administrative adjudication with Article III under certain safeguards
ⓘ
constitutional limits on delegation of adjudicatory power to administrative agencies ⓘ distinction between jurisdictional facts and ordinary facts in administrative adjudication ⓘ requirement of judicial review of constitutional and jurisdictional questions decided by agencies ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Charles Evans Hughes NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| publicationType | official United States Reports opinion ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. NERFINISHED ⓘ Stern v. Marshall NERFINISHED ⓘ Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
administrative fact-finding
ⓘ
constitutional fact doctrine ⓘ judicial review of administrative action ⓘ non-Article III tribunals ⓘ public rights doctrine ⓘ separation of powers ⓘ |
| result | The Supreme Court upheld the basic administrative scheme but required independent judicial determination of constitutional and jurisdictional facts. ⓘ |
| setsPrecedentFor |
judicial review of agency determinations of jurisdictional facts
ⓘ
treatment of agency findings of fact as final when supported by evidence ⓘ |
| timePeriod | Lochner–New Deal era of Supreme Court jurisprudence NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1932 ⓘ |
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: Crowell v. Benson Description of subject: Crowell v. Benson is a 1932 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the constitutional limits of administrative agencies’ fact-finding powers and the scope of judicial review over administrative adjudications.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.