Toomer v. Witsell
E15620
Privileges and Immunities Clause case
United States Supreme Court case
constitutional law case
court case
Toomer v. Witsell is a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case that significantly interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause by striking down discriminatory state licensing fees imposed on out-of-state commercial fishermen.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Toomer v. Witsell canonical | 6 |
| Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948) | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T132267 — 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: Toomer v. Witsell Context triple: [Privileges and Immunities Clause, keyCase, Toomer v. Witsell]
-
A.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
B.
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.
-
C.
Ware v. Hylton
Ware v. Hylton was a 1796 U.S. Supreme Court case that held federal treaties override conflicting state laws, helping to establish the authority of the national government under the Constitution.
-
D.
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.
-
E.
Craig v. Boren
Craig v. Boren is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that established intermediate scrutiny as the standard for evaluating gender-based classifications under the Equal Protection 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: Toomer v. Witsell Target entity description: Toomer v. Witsell is a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case that significantly interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause by striking down discriminatory state licensing fees imposed on out-of-state commercial fishermen.
-
A.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
B.
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.
-
C.
Ware v. Hylton
Ware v. Hylton was a 1796 U.S. Supreme Court case that held federal treaties override conflicting state laws, helping to establish the authority of the national government under the Constitution.
-
D.
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.
-
E.
Craig v. Boren
Craig v. Boren is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that established intermediate scrutiny as the standard for evaluating gender-based classifications under the Equal Protection Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (37)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Privileges and Immunities Clause case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ constitutional law case ⓘ court case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
federalism ⓘ interstate commerce and privileges and immunities ⓘ |
| citationStatus | leading authority on Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause
ⓘ
linked to:
Privileges and Immunities Clause
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1948 ⓘ |
| discriminationType | discriminatory licensing fees against out-of-state commercial fishermen ⓘ |
| holding |
South Carolina’s discriminatory licensing fees on out-of-state commercial shrimp fishermen violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause
ⓘ
States may not impose discriminatory burdens on nonresidents with respect to fundamental economic activities without substantial justification ⓘ The Privileges and Immunities Clause protects the right of citizens to pursue a common calling in other states on substantially equal terms ⓘ
linked to:
Privileges and Immunities Clause
|
| impact |
became a leading precedent on economic rights protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause
ⓘ
limited states’ ability to impose discriminatory licensing schemes on nonresidents ⓘ significantly clarified the scope of the Privileges and Immunities Clause ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
scope of the Privileges and Immunities Clause
ⓘ
state discrimination against nonresidents ⓘ validity of discriminatory state licensing fees ⓘ |
| party |
Toomer
ⓘ
Witsell ⓘ |
| protectedClass | nonresident United States citizens ⓘ |
| relatedCaseArea | cases limiting state discrimination against nonresidents in economic activities ⓘ |
| relatedDoctrine |
interstate equality of citizenship
ⓘ
state police power limits under the Constitution ⓘ |
| rightRecognized |
right of citizens to pursue a common calling in other states
ⓘ
right of nonresident citizens to be free from unreasonable economic discrimination by other states ⓘ |
| standardArticulated |
requirement that discrimination against nonresidents bear a close or substantial relationship to the state’s objectives
ⓘ
substantial reason test for discrimination against nonresidents under the Privileges and Immunities Clause ⓘ |
| stateInvolved | South Carolina ⓘ |
| stateLawChallenged | South Carolina statute regulating commercial shrimp fishing ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
commercial shrimp fishing
ⓘ
state licensing fees ⓘ |
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: Toomer v. Witsell Description of subject: Toomer v. Witsell is a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case that significantly interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause by striking down discriminatory state licensing fees imposed on out-of-state commercial fishermen.
Referenced by (7)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden
→
relatedCase
→
Toomer v. Witsell
ⓘ
linked to: Toomer v. Witsell