United States v. Butler
E11198
United States v. Butler was a 1936 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act as an unconstitutional use of federal taxing and spending power.
All labels observed (4)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| United States v. Butler canonical | 14 |
| Supreme Court decision in United States v. Butler | 1 |
| United States v. Butler (1936) | 1 |
| United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T85022 — 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: United States v. Butler Context triple: [Agricultural Adjustment Administration, relatedCase, United States v. Butler]
-
A.
Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn is a landmark 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded federal regulatory power by holding that even purely local, non-commercial activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause if it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
-
B.
United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
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.
-
E.
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.
- 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: United States v. Butler Target entity description: United States v. Butler was a 1936 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act as an unconstitutional use of federal taxing and spending power.
-
A.
Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn is a landmark 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded federal regulatory power by holding that even purely local, non-commercial activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause if it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
-
B.
United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
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.
-
E.
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.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
U.S. Supreme Court case
ⓘ
constitutional law case ⓘ landmark case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
administrative law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ tax law ⓘ |
| chiefJusticeAtTime | Charles Evans Hughes ⓘ |
| citation | 297 U.S. 1 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution
ⓘ
Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1936-01-06 ⓘ |
| defendant | Butler ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy |
Benjamin N. Cardozo
ⓘ
linked to:
Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo
Harlan F. Stone ⓘ
linked to:
Justice Harlan F. Stone
Louis Brandeis ⓘ
linked to:
Justice Louis D. Brandeis
|
| firstPageInUnitedStatesReports | 1 ⓘ |
| fullCaseName | United States v. Butler ⓘ |
| holding |
Congress may not use its taxing and spending power to regulate matters reserved to the states
ⓘ
key provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 were unconstitutional ⓘ the Agricultural Adjustment Act’s processing taxes and benefit payments exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority ⓘ |
| impact |
constrained early New Deal agricultural policy
ⓘ
invalidated federal agricultural production control program ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| lawApplied |
Taxing and Spending Clause
ⓘ
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ U.S. Constitution ⓘ
linked to:
United States Constitution
|
| legalIssue |
constitutionality of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933
ⓘ
scope of the Taxing and Spending Clause ⓘ |
| majorityJusticesJoining |
Charles Evans Hughes
ⓘ
George Sutherland ⓘ Harlan F. Stone ⓘ
linked to:
Justice Harlan F. Stone
James Clark McReynolds ⓘ Pierce Butler ⓘ Willis Van Devanter ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Owen J. Roberts
ⓘ
linked to:
Justice Owen J. Roberts
|
| plaintiff |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| precedentStatus | partially superseded by later New Deal era decisions ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
coercion of states through conditional spending
ⓘ
general welfare clause ⓘ |
| relatedHistoricalContext | New Deal ⓘ |
| relatedLegislation | Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 ⓘ |
| subsequentDevelopment |
later limited by Helvering v. Davis
ⓘ
later limited by Steward Machine Co. v. Davis ⓘ |
| topic |
federalism in the United States
ⓘ
limits on federal spending power ⓘ |
| volumeInUnitedStatesReports | 297 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1936 ⓘ |
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: United States v. Butler Description of subject: United States v. Butler was a 1936 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act as an unconstitutional use of federal taxing and spending power.
Referenced by (17)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936
→
motivatedBy
→
Supreme Court decision in United States v. Butler
ⓘ
linked to: United States v. Butler
linked to: United States v. Butler
linked to: United States v. Butler