Triple

Given a phrase, classify it is english named entity (e.g., persons, organizations, works of art) in Latin script, or not (e.g., literals, dates, URLs, verbose phrases). For disambiguation, the statement where the phrase occurs as object is also given. Please return a JSON object with `phrase` (string, the phrase being analyzed) and `is_ne` (boolean, indicating whether the phrase is a Named Entity).

Phrase: District of Columbia v. Heller | Statement: [New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, clarifiesPrecedent, District of Columbia v. Heller]

Target entity: District of Columbia v. Heller
Context triple: [New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, clarifiesPrecedent, District of Columbia v. Heller]

• A. District of Columbia v. Heller chosen
  District of Columbia v. Heller is a landmark 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms unconnected with service in a militia.
• B. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
  New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen is a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down New York’s restrictive concealed-carry licensing regime and significantly expanded the scope of individual gun rights under the Second Amendment.
• C. United States v. Lopez
  United States v. Lopez is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked the first time in decades the Court struck down a federal law for exceeding Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, signaling a revival of limits on federal regulatory authority.
• D. Washington v. Texas
  Washington v. Texas is a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held criminal defendants have a constitutional right to obtain testimony from favorable witnesses, incorporating the Compulsory Process Clause against the states.
• E. United States v. Alvarez
  United States v. Alvarez is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down the Stolen Valor Act’s criminalization of lying about receiving military honors as a violation of the First Amendment’s free speech protections.
• F. None of above.
• G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

Target predicate: clarifiesPrecedent
Context triple: [New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, clarifiesPrecedent, District of Columbia v. Heller]

• A. precedentInterpreted chosen
  Indicates that one legal precedent is interpreted or understood in a particular way, often as clarified or applied in subsequent decisions or analyses.
• B. precedentFor
  Indicates that one situation, decision, or case serves as an authoritative example or basis for deciding or interpreting another.
• C. typicalPrecedent
  Indicates that one situation, case, or event serves as a standard or commonly followed example for how similar later situations are handled.
• D. modifiedPrecedent
  Indicates that one entity has altered, qualified, or changed the terms, scope, or interpretation of a prior decision, rule, or precedent.
• E. legalPrecedentInvolved
  Indicates that a particular legal precedent (prior court decision or ruling) is relevant to, cited in, or forms the basis for the current legal matter or action.
• F. None of above.