Bolling v. Sharpe
E10748
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.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Bolling v. Sharpe canonical | 6 |
| Bolling et al. v. Sharpe et al. | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T60856 — 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: Bolling v. Sharpe Context triple: [Brown v. Board of Education, relatedCase, Bolling v. Sharpe]
-
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.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
C.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
D.
United States v. Comstock
United States v. Comstock is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s authority to civilly commit mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoners beyond their release date under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause.
-
E.
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by affirming Congress’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations under the Commerce Clause.
- 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: Bolling v. Sharpe Target entity description: 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.
-
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.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
C.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
D.
United States v. Comstock
United States v. Comstock is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s authority to civilly commit mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoners beyond their release date under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause.
-
E.
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by affirming Congress’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations under the Commerce Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
desegregation case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ |
| appliesTo | federal government ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
civil rights law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ education law ⓘ |
| citation | 347 U.S. 497 ⓘ |
| clauseInterpreted |
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
ⓘ
linked to:
Due Process Clause
|
| constitutionalAmendmentNumber | 5 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| constitutionalRightProtected |
right to due process of law
ⓘ
right to equal treatment in public education ⓘ |
| decidedSameDayAs | Brown v. Board of Education ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1954-05-17 ⓘ |
| decisionFormat | per curiam-like unanimous opinion authored by the Chief Justice ⓘ |
| distinguishedFrom |
Brown v. Board of Education (which applied the Fourteenth Amendment to the states)
ⓘ
linked to:
Brown v. Board of Education
|
| doctrineApplied | reverse incorporation ⓘ |
| establishedPrinciple |
equal protection principles are applicable to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause
ⓘ
racial segregation in public education violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment ⓘ |
| hasCountry |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| hasCourt | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| holding | racial segregation in District of Columbia public schools is unconstitutional ⓘ |
| impact |
contributed to the dismantling of legally mandated school segregation in the United States
ⓘ
extended constitutional protections against racial segregation to federal jurisdictions ⓘ |
| isPartOf | Warren Court jurisprudence ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | District of Columbia ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
constitutionality of school segregation in the District of Columbia
ⓘ
racial segregation in public schools ⓘ |
| opinionAuthor | Earl Warren ⓘ |
| opinionType | majority opinion ⓘ |
| overturnedPractice | racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools ⓘ |
| pageInUnitedStatesReports | 497 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Black schoolchildren in the District of Columbia ⓘ |
| reasoning |
segregation in public education is not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective
ⓘ
segregation in public schools imposes an arbitrary deprivation of liberty in violation of due process ⓘ |
| relatedTo | Brown v. Board of Education ⓘ |
| respondent | C. Melvin Sharpe ⓘ |
| respondentRole | President of the Board of Education of the District of Columbia ⓘ |
| segregationBasis | race ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | public education in the District of Columbia ⓘ |
| subsequentCitationBy |
United States Supreme Court
ⓘ
linked to:
Supreme Court of the United States
|
| typeOfSegregationChallenged | de jure racial segregation ⓘ |
| unanimousDecision | true ⓘ |
| usedFor | foundation of reverse incorporation doctrine in later equal protection cases against the federal government ⓘ |
| volumeInUnitedStatesReports | 347 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1954 ⓘ |
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: Bolling v. Sharpe Description of subject: 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.
Referenced by (7)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
subject linked to:
Bolling v. Sharpe (argued separately, decided same day)
linked to: Bolling v. Sharpe