Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council
E2548
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a Massachusetts law restricting state business with Burma was preempted by federal sanctions under the Supremacy Clause.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council canonical | 4 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T33059 — 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: Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council Context triple: [Supremacy Clause, interpretedInCase, Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council]
-
A.
Helvering v. Davis
Helvering v. Davis is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Social Security Act and broadly affirmed federal power to tax and spend for the general welfare.
-
B.
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal unemployment compensation provisions of the Social Security Act, affirming broad congressional power to tax and spend for the general welfare.
-
C.
Headquarters Agreement between the United Nations and the United States
The Headquarters Agreement between the United Nations and the United States is the treaty that establishes the legal status, privileges, and obligations governing the UN’s presence and operations at its main headquarters in New York City.
-
D.
Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade was a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized a constitutional right to abortion, profoundly shaping American law and politics until it was overturned in 2022.
-
E.
United States v. Virginia (1996) majority opinion
The United States v. Virginia (1996) majority opinion is a landmark Supreme Court decision, authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that struck down the Virginia Military Institute’s male-only admissions policy as unconstitutional sex discrimination 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: Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council Target entity description: Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a Massachusetts law restricting state business with Burma was preempted by federal sanctions under the Supremacy Clause.
-
A.
Helvering v. Davis
Helvering v. Davis is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Social Security Act and broadly affirmed federal power to tax and spend for the general welfare.
-
B.
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal unemployment compensation provisions of the Social Security Act, affirming broad congressional power to tax and spend for the general welfare.
-
C.
Headquarters Agreement between the United Nations and the United States
The Headquarters Agreement between the United Nations and the United States is the treaty that establishes the legal status, privileges, and obligations governing the UN’s presence and operations at its main headquarters in New York City.
-
D.
Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade was a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized a constitutional right to abortion, profoundly shaping American law and politics until it was overturned in 2022.
-
E.
United States v. Virginia (1996) majority opinion
The United States v. Virginia (1996) majority opinion is a landmark Supreme Court decision, authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that struck down the Virginia Military Institute’s male-only admissions policy as unconstitutional sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (44)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Supremacy Clause case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ federal preemption case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
federal courts and jurisdiction ⓘ foreign relations law ⓘ government contracts ⓘ |
| chiefJusticeAtDecision | William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| citation |
120 S. Ct. 2288
ⓘ
147 L. Ed. 2d 352 ⓘ 530 U.S. 363 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Article VI of the United States Constitution
ⓘ
linked to:
Article VI
Supremacy Clause ⓘ |
| countryConcerned |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2000-06-19 ⓘ |
| decisionType | unanimous decision ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 99-474 ⓘ |
| foreignCountryConcerned |
Burma
ⓘ
linked to:
Myanmar
Myanmar ⓘ |
| holding |
Massachusetts law restricting state business with Burma is preempted by federal law
ⓘ
federal Burma sanctions statute occupies the field with respect to sanctions against Burma ⓘ state Burma law conflicted with federal Burma sanctions regime ⓘ |
| impact |
clarified preemption analysis in the context of foreign sanctions
ⓘ
limited state authority to impose independent sanctions on foreign countries ⓘ |
| jurisdictionBasis | appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution
ⓘ
linked to:
Supremacy Clause
federal preemption ⓘ foreign affairs power ⓘ state sanctions against foreign nations ⓘ |
| opinionAuthor | David H. Souter ⓘ |
| originatingJurisdiction |
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
ⓘ
linked to:
Massachusetts
|
| petitioner | Philip W. Crosby, Treasurer and Receiver General of Massachusetts ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
American Insurance Assn. v. Garamendi
ⓘ
Hines v. Davidowitz ⓘ Zschernig v. Miller ⓘ |
| relatedDoctrine |
conflict preemption
ⓘ
foreign affairs preemption ⓘ obstacle preemption ⓘ |
| respondent | National Foreign Trade Council ⓘ |
| statuteInterpreted |
Massachusetts Burma law
ⓘ
federal Burma sanctions statute ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
foreign economic sanctions
ⓘ
state procurement law ⓘ |
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: Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council Description of subject: Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a Massachusetts law restricting state business with Burma was preempted by federal sanctions under the Supremacy Clause.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
subject linked to:
Philip W. Crosby, Treasurer and Receiver General of Massachusetts
subject linked to:
Philip W. Crosby, Treasurer and Receiver General of Massachusetts