United States v. Carolene Products Co.
E723377
United States v. Carolene Products Co. is a 1938 U.S. Supreme Court case best known for its Footnote Four, which laid the groundwork for modern constitutional scrutiny of legislation affecting fundamental rights and discrete and insular minorities.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| United States v. Carolene Products Co. canonical | 4 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T8283003 — 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.
Target entity: United States v. Carolene Products Co. Context triple: [Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co., partOf, United States v. Carolene Products Co.]
-
A.
Katzenbach v. McClung
Katzenbach v. McClung is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in local restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
-
B.
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Katzenbach v. Morgan is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit certain state voting restrictions, reinforcing federal authority to protect voting rights.
-
C.
South Carolina v. Katzenbach
South Carolina v. Katzenbach is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, affirming broad federal power to combat racial discrimination in voting.
-
D.
Wesberry v. Sanders
Wesberry v. Sanders is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle that congressional districts must be drawn so that each person's vote is as equal in weight as practicable, laying groundwork for the "one person, one vote" standard.
-
E.
Learned Hand
Learned Hand was a highly influential American federal judge renowned for his incisive opinions on constitutional and tax law and his lasting impact on U.S. jurisprudence.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
Target entity: United States v. Carolene Products Co. Target entity description: United States v. Carolene Products Co. is a 1938 U.S. Supreme Court case best known for its Footnote Four, which laid the groundwork for modern constitutional scrutiny of legislation affecting fundamental rights and discrete and insular minorities.
-
A.
Katzenbach v. McClung
Katzenbach v. McClung is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in local restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
-
B.
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Katzenbach v. Morgan is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit certain state voting restrictions, reinforcing federal authority to protect voting rights.
-
C.
South Carolina v. Katzenbach
South Carolina v. Katzenbach is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, affirming broad federal power to combat racial discrimination in voting.
-
D.
Wesberry v. Sanders
Wesberry v. Sanders is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle that congressional districts must be drawn so that each person's vote is as equal in weight as practicable, laying groundwork for the "one person, one vote" standard.
-
E.
Learned Hand
Learned Hand was a highly influential American federal judge renowned for his incisive opinions on constitutional and tax law and his lasting impact on U.S. jurisprudence.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Due Process Clause case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ constitutional law case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
United States constitutional law
ⓘ
federal regulatory power ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| dissentBy | James C. McReynolds NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| famousFor | Footnote Four NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| followedByCase | United States v. Darby NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| footnoteFourSuggests |
more searching judicial inquiry for legislation directed at discrete and insular minorities
ⓘ
more searching judicial inquiry for legislation restricting political processes ⓘ more searching judicial inquiry for legislation restricting specific constitutional prohibitions ⓘ |
| footnoteNumber | 4 ⓘ |
| fullCaseName | United States v. Carolene Products Company NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasCitation | 304 U.S. 144 ⓘ |
| hasCourt | Supreme Court of the United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasDocketNumber | No. 640 ⓘ |
| holding |
Economic regulations affecting ordinary commercial transactions are presumed constitutional if supported by a rational basis.
ⓘ
The Filled Milk Act is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| impact |
laid groundwork for modern constitutional scrutiny of legislation affecting discrete and insular minorities
ⓘ
laid groundwork for modern constitutional scrutiny of legislation affecting fundamental rights ⓘ |
| influencedDoctrine |
heightened scrutiny for laws targeting discrete and insular minorities
ⓘ
strict scrutiny for laws affecting fundamental rights ⓘ tiers of scrutiny in constitutional law ⓘ |
| introducedConcept | rational basis review for economic legislation ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Benjamin N. Cardozo
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Charles Evans Hughes NERFINISHED ⓘ Hugo L. Black NERFINISHED ⓘ Louis Brandeis NERFINISHED ⓘ Owen J. Roberts NERFINISHED ⓘ Stanley F. Reed NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal question jurisdiction ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
constitutionality of federal regulation of filled milk
ⓘ
scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause ⓘ standard of review for economic regulation ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Harlan F. Stone NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| pageInUnitedStatesReports | 144 ⓘ |
| petitioner | United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| precededByCase | Nebbia v. New York NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| respondent | Carolene Products Company NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| statuteInterpreted | Filled Milk Act of 1923 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | regulation of food products in interstate commerce ⓘ |
| volumeOfUnitedStatesReports | 304 ⓘ |
| wasArguedOn |
1938-02-10
ⓘ
1938-02-11 ⓘ |
| wasDecidedOn | 1938-04-25 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1938 ⓘ |
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.
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.
Subject: United States v. Carolene Products Co. Description of subject: United States v. Carolene Products Co. is a 1938 U.S. Supreme Court case best known for its Footnote Four, which laid the groundwork for modern constitutional scrutiny of legislation affecting fundamental rights and discrete and insular minorities.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.