New York v. United States (1992)

E13964

Tenth Amendment case United States Supreme Court case federalism case landmark Supreme Court case

New York v. United States (1992) is a landmark Supreme Court case that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel states to enact or enforce federal regulatory programs, reinforcing the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

AI illustration

All labels observed (4)

Label	Occurrences
New York v. United States (1992) canonical	8
New York v. United States	1
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)	1
New York, et al. v. United States, et al.	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T125904 — 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: New York v. United States (1992)
Context triple: [Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, keyCase, New York v. United States (1992)]

A. Gibbons v. Ogden
Gibbons v. Ogden was an 1824 U.S. Supreme Court case that broadly affirmed federal power over interstate commerce, significantly strengthening national authority relative to the states.
B. 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.
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. 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. 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.
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: New York v. United States (1992)
Target entity description: New York v. United States (1992) is a landmark Supreme Court case that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel states to enact or enforce federal regulatory programs, reinforcing the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle.

A. Gibbons v. Ogden
Gibbons v. Ogden was an 1824 U.S. Supreme Court case that broadly affirmed federal power over interstate commerce, significantly strengthening national authority relative to the states.
B. 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.
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. 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. 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.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (44)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	Tenth Amendment case ⓘ United States Supreme Court case ⓘ federalism case ⓘ landmark Supreme Court case ⓘ
areaOfLaw	constitutional law ⓘ federalism ⓘ separation of powers ⓘ
category	United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court ⓘ United States Supreme Court cases on federalism ⓘ
challengedProvision	take-title provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 ⓘ
chiefJusticeAtTime	William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
citation	505 U.S. 144 ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution ⓘ linked to: Commerce Clause Spending Clause of the United States Constitution ⓘ linked to: Taxing and Spending Clause Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
country	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	1992 ⓘ
doctrineEstablished	modern anti-commandeering doctrine ⓘ
fullCaseName	New York, et al. v. United States, et al. ⓘ linked to: New York v. United States (1992)
holding	Congress may not compel states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program ⓘ the federal government cannot commandeer the legislative processes of the states ⓘ
impact	limited Congress’s ability to force states to administer federal programs ⓘ strengthened state sovereignty against federal mandates ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States federal courts ⓘ linked to: federal judiciary of the United States
languageOfProceeding	English ⓘ
laterCitedIn	Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018) ⓘ Printz v. United States (1997) ⓘ linked to: Printz v. United States
legalIssue	Tenth Amendment limits on federal authority ⓘ anti-commandeering doctrine ⓘ scope of federal power under the Commerce Clause ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ linked to: Sandra Day O’Connor
partyType	federal government as defendant ⓘ state as plaintiff ⓘ
petitioner	State of New York ⓘ linked to: U.S. state of New York
principle	Congress may encourage but not compel state regulation ⓘ federal government must regulate individuals directly rather than commandeer states ⓘ
reasoning	Tenth Amendment confirms that powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states or the people ⓘ commandeering blurs political accountability between state and federal officials ⓘ
relatedStatute	Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 ⓘ
respondent	United States of America ⓘ
result	other incentive provisions of the Act upheld ⓘ take-title provision held unconstitutional ⓘ
voteSplit	6–3 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (11)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution → keyCase → New York v. United States (1992) ⓘ

New York v. United States (1992) → fullCaseName → New York, et al. v. United States, et al. ⓘ

linked to: New York v. United States (1992)

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 → associatedCourtCase → New York v. United States (1992) ⓘ

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 → challengedIn → New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) ⓘ

linked to: New York v. United States (1992)

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association → relatedPrecedent → New York v. United States (1992) ⓘ

subject linked to: Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018)

Jay Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana, et al. v. United States → relatedCase → New York v. United States ⓘ

linked to: New York v. United States (1992)

The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act’s provisions prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling schemes violate the anti-commandeering rule of the Tenth Amendment → relatedPrecedent → New York v. United States (1992) ⓘ

subject linked to: The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act’s provisions prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling schemes violate the anti-commandeering rule of the Tenth Amendment.

PASPA was struck down as unconstitutional → relatedCase → New York v. United States (1992) ⓘ

subject linked to: PASPA was struck down as unconstitutional.

anti-commandeering doctrine → articulatedIn → New York v. United States (1992) ⓘ

subject linked to: anti-commandeering doctrine in United States constitutional law

anti-commandeering doctrine → firstClearlyRecognizedIn → New York v. United States (1992) ⓘ

subject linked to: anti-commandeering doctrine in United States constitutional law

anti-commandeering doctrine → hasKeyCase → New York v. United States (1992) ⓘ

subject linked to: anti-commandeering doctrine in United States constitutional law