INS v. Chadha
E27123
INS v. Chadha is a landmark 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down the legislative veto as unconstitutional, significantly reshaping the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| INS v. Chadha canonical | 8 |
| Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha | 2 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T208967 — 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: INS v. Chadha Context triple: [National Emergencies Act, relatedTo, INS v. Chadha]
-
A.
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.
-
B.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
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.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
E.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
- 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: INS v. Chadha Target entity description: INS v. Chadha is a landmark 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down the legislative veto as unconstitutional, significantly reshaping the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch.
-
A.
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.
-
B.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
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.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
E.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark constitutional law case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
administrative law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ immigration law ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1982-02-23 ⓘ |
| citation | 462 U.S. 919 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.
ⓘ
linked to:
Lewis F. Powell Jr.
|
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Article I of the United States Constitution
ⓘ
Bicameralism requirement ⓘ Presentment Clause ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1983-06-23 ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Justice Byron R. White
ⓘ
linked to:
Byron R. White
Justice William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
linked to:
William H. Rehnquist
|
| docketNumber | 80-1832 ⓘ |
| effect |
invalidated many federal statutory provisions using legislative veto mechanisms
ⓘ
limited Congress’s ability to control executive agencies through legislative vetoes ⓘ strengthened executive branch discretion in administration of statutes ⓘ |
| fullName |
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha
ⓘ
linked to:
INS v. Chadha
|
| holding |
Congress must comply with bicameralism and presentment to take legislative action
ⓘ
Section 244(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is unconstitutional ⓘ one-house legislative veto provisions are unconstitutional ⓘ |
| joinedMajority |
Justice Byron R. White
ⓘ
linked to:
Byron R. White
Justice Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ
linked to:
Harry A. Blackmun
Justice John Paul Stevens ⓘ
linked to:
John Paul Stevens
Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ
linked to:
Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ
linked to:
Sandra Day O’Connor
Justice Thurgood Marshall ⓘ
linked to:
Thurgood Marshall
Justice William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ
linked to:
William J. Brennan Jr.
|
| jurisdiction | federal question jurisdiction ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
bicameralism and presentment requirements
ⓘ
constitutionality of the legislative veto ⓘ separation of powers ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger
ⓘ
linked to:
Warren E. Burger
|
| page | 919 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Immigration and Naturalization Service ⓘ |
| rearguedDate |
1982-12-06
ⓘ
1982-12-07 ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
checks and balances
ⓘ
legislative veto ⓘ nondelegation doctrine ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent | Jagdish Rai Chadha ⓘ |
| subsequentHistory | decision has been repeatedly cited as precedent on separation of powers and legislative veto issues ⓘ |
| volume | 462 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1983 ⓘ |
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: INS v. Chadha Description of subject: INS v. Chadha is a landmark 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down the legislative veto as unconstitutional, significantly reshaping the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch.
Referenced by (10)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.