Opinion in Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852)
E251554
The Opinion in Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the scope of the Commerce Clause by allowing certain local regulations affecting interstate commerce when they address inherently local matters.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Cooley v. Board of Wardens holding that pilotage laws could be regulated by states | 1 |
| Opinion in Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852) canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T2265418 — 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: Opinion in Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852) Context triple: [Samuel Nelson, notableWork, Opinion in Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852)]
-
A.
Cohens v. Virginia
Cohens v. Virginia is an 1821 U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed the Court’s authority to review state criminal proceedings involving federal law, strengthening federal judicial power over the states.
-
B.
Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia
The Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) was an early and controversial ruling that allowed a citizen of one state to sue another state in federal court, prompting the swift adoption of the Eleventh Amendment to limit such suits.
-
C.
Windsor v. United States (in part)
Windsor v. United States (in part) is a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down key portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, advancing federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
-
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.
Ex parte Young
Ex parte Young is a landmark 1908 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created a legal fiction allowing suits in federal court against state officials to stop ongoing violations of federal law, despite state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
- 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: Opinion in Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852) Target entity description: The Opinion in Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the scope of the Commerce Clause by allowing certain local regulations affecting interstate commerce when they address inherently local matters.
-
A.
Cohens v. Virginia
Cohens v. Virginia is an 1821 U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed the Court’s authority to review state criminal proceedings involving federal law, strengthening federal judicial power over the states.
-
B.
Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia
The Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) was an early and controversial ruling that allowed a citizen of one state to sue another state in federal court, prompting the swift adoption of the Eleventh Amendment to limit such suits.
-
C.
Windsor v. United States (in part)
Windsor v. United States (in part) is a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down key portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, advancing federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
-
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.
Ex parte Young
Ex parte Young is a landmark 1908 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created a legal fiction allowing suits in federal court against state officials to stop ongoing violations of federal law, despite state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (42)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court opinion
ⓘ
judicial decision ⓘ landmark Commerce Clause case ⓘ |
| category |
19th-century United States Supreme Court decisions
ⓘ
United States commerce clause case law ⓘ United States constitutional case law ⓘ |
| characteristic |
distinguished between subjects of commerce that demand national uniformity and those that do not
ⓘ
upheld a state law against a Commerce Clause challenge ⓘ |
| citation |
12 How. 299
ⓘ
53 U.S. 299 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
ⓘ
Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution ⓘ
linked to:
Commerce Clause
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| doctrine |
local versus national subject test under the Commerce Clause
ⓘ
selective exclusiveness doctrine ⓘ |
| geographicFocus | Port of Philadelphia ⓘ |
| holding |
pilotage laws are valid exercises of state power despite their effect on interstate and foreign commerce
ⓘ
states may enact certain local regulations affecting commerce in the absence of conflicting federal legislation ⓘ |
| impact |
helped define the boundary between federal and state power over commerce
ⓘ
influenced later dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence ⓘ provided a framework for evaluating state laws affecting navigation and shipping ⓘ recognized a category of inherently local commercial regulations ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States federal law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ |
| legalConclusion |
Congress’s power over commerce is not necessarily exclusive in all areas
ⓘ
states may regulate local aspects of navigation absent conflicting federal regulation ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
dormant Commerce Clause
ⓘ
linked to:
Commerce Clause
scope of the Commerce Clause ⓘ state regulation of interstate and foreign commerce ⓘ |
| partOf | Cooley v. Board of Wardens ⓘ |
| party |
Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia
ⓘ
Cooley ⓘ |
| principle |
local diversity of regulation can be permissible under the Commerce Clause
ⓘ
other aspects of commerce are inherently local and may be regulated by states ⓘ some aspects of commerce require a single uniform national rule ⓘ the Commerce Clause does not automatically invalidate all state laws affecting commerce ⓘ |
| relatedCaseCategory | dormant Commerce Clause cases ⓘ |
| relatedField |
federalism in the United States
ⓘ
maritime law ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
Pennsylvania pilotage law
ⓘ
state pilotage requirements for ships entering or leaving a port ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1852 ⓘ |
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: Opinion in Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852) Description of subject: The Opinion in Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the scope of the Commerce Clause by allowing certain local regulations affecting interstate commerce when they address inherently local matters.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Cooley doctrine
→
influencedBy
→
Cooley v. Board of Wardens holding that pilotage laws could be regulated by states
ⓘ
linked to: Opinion in Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852)