Hurd v. Hodge
E435960
Hurd v. Hodge is a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially restrictive covenants in property deeds could not be judicially enforced in the District of Columbia because such enforcement would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Hurd v. Hodge canonical | 3 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T4396576 — 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: Hurd v. Hodge Context triple: [McGhee v. Sipes, relatedCase, Hurd v. Hodge]
-
A.
Henry v. Hodges
Henry v. Hodges is a federal court case challenging state bans on same-sex marriage, decided alongside other landmark marriage equality cases prior to Obergefell v. Hodges.
-
B.
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.
-
C.
Shaw v. Hunt
Shaw v. Hunt is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that further developed the Court’s racial gerrymandering jurisprudence by applying and extending the principles first articulated in Shaw v. Reno.
-
D.
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
-
E.
Hall v. DeCuir
Hall v. DeCuir was an 1878 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority to regulate racial segregation in interstate transportation, reinforcing federal primacy over interstate commerce.
- 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: Hurd v. Hodge Target entity description: Hurd v. Hodge is a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially restrictive covenants in property deeds could not be judicially enforced in the District of Columbia because such enforcement would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
A.
Henry v. Hodges
Henry v. Hodges is a federal court case challenging state bans on same-sex marriage, decided alongside other landmark marriage equality cases prior to Obergefell v. Hodges.
-
B.
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.
-
C.
Shaw v. Hunt
Shaw v. Hunt is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that further developed the Court’s racial gerrymandering jurisprudence by applying and extending the principles first articulated in Shaw v. Reno.
-
D.
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
-
E.
Hall v. DeCuir
Hall v. DeCuir was an 1878 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority to regulate racial segregation in interstate transportation, reinforcing federal primacy over interstate commerce.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (44)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
civil rights case ⓘ housing discrimination case ⓘ |
| citation | 334 U.S. 24 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause
ⓘ
linked to:
Due Process Clause
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| context | racial segregation in mid-20th-century American housing markets ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1948-05-03 ⓘ |
| decisionType | majority opinion ⓘ |
| discriminationType | race-based housing discrimination ⓘ |
| effect |
advanced federal constitutional protections against racial discrimination in housing
ⓘ
limited the enforceability of racially restrictive covenants in the District of Columbia ⓘ |
| enforcementMechanismAddressed | judicial enforcement of private covenants ⓘ |
| holding |
Federal courts in the District of Columbia may not enforce racially restrictive covenants
ⓘ
Judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants in the District of Columbia violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause ⓘ Racially restrictive covenants are unenforceable in the District of Columbia courts ⓘ |
| impact | contributed to the decline of legally enforceable racially restrictive covenants in the United States ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | District of Columbia ⓘ |
| languageOfProceeding | English ⓘ |
| legalDoctrine |
due process under the Fifth Amendment
ⓘ
state action doctrine ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants
ⓘ
racial discrimination in housing ⓘ state action doctrine as applied to courts in the District of Columbia ⓘ |
| locationOfDispute | Washington, D.C. ⓘ |
| party |
Hodge
ⓘ
Hurd ⓘ |
| precedentFor | later fair housing and anti-discrimination jurisprudence ⓘ |
| principle |
Federal courts may not give effect to private agreements that result in unconstitutional racial discrimination
ⓘ
Judicial enforcement of private agreements can constitute government action for constitutional purposes ⓘ |
| relatedAreaOfLaw |
civil rights law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ housing law ⓘ property law ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
McGhee v. Sipes
ⓘ
Shelley v. Kraemer ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
racial segregation in housing
ⓘ
racially restrictive covenants in property deeds ⓘ |
| term | October Term 1947 ⓘ |
| timePeriod | post–World War II era ⓘ |
| USReportsPage | 24 ⓘ |
| USReportsVolume | 334 ⓘ |
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: Hurd v. Hodge Description of subject: Hurd v. Hodge is a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially restrictive covenants in property deeds could not be judicially enforced in the District of Columbia because such enforcement would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.