Hylton v. United States
E48110
Hylton v. United States was an 1796 U.S. Supreme Court case that is historically significant as one of the Court’s earliest exercises of judicial review in upholding a federal tax on carriages.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Hylton v. United States canonical | 4 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T375583 — 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: Hylton v. United States Context triple: [Ware v. Hylton, relatedCase, Hylton v. United States]
-
A.
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.
-
B.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
C.
Bond v. United States
Bond v. United States is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified an individual’s ability to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to federal statutes, reinforcing limits on federal power in favor of state sovereignty.
-
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.
Dickerson v. United States
Dickerson v. United States is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the constitutional basis of Miranda warnings and held that Congress could not overrule Miranda v. Arizona by statute.
- 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: Hylton v. United States Target entity description: Hylton v. United States was an 1796 U.S. Supreme Court case that is historically significant as one of the Court’s earliest exercises of judicial review in upholding a federal tax on carriages.
-
A.
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.
-
B.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
C.
Bond v. United States
Bond v. United States is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified an individual’s ability to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to federal statutes, reinforcing limits on federal power in favor of state sovereignty.
-
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.
Dickerson v. United States
Dickerson v. United States is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the constitutional basis of Miranda warnings and held that Congress could not overrule Miranda v. Arizona by statute.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark United States Supreme Court case ⓘ |
| appliedProvision |
Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution
ⓘ
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution ⓘ Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution ⓘ Direct Tax Clause of the United States Constitution ⓘ Taxing and Spending Clause of the United States Constitution ⓘ
linked to:
Taxing and Spending Clause
|
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
federal courts ⓘ tax law ⓘ |
| citationStatus | good law ⓘ |
| constitutionalQuestion |
extent of congressional power to impose excise taxes
ⓘ
whether the carriage tax was a direct tax that had to be apportioned among the states ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| dateDecided | 1796 ⓘ |
| decisionType | unanimous decision in result ⓘ |
| defendant |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| governmentalBodyInvolved | United States Congress ⓘ |
| governmentBranch | judicial branch of the United States ⓘ |
| hasJurisdiction | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| held |
a federal tax on carriages was constitutional
ⓘ
the carriage tax was not a direct tax requiring apportionment among the states ⓘ |
| historicalEra | early United States Republic ⓘ |
| languageOfRecord | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
constitutionality of a federal tax on carriages
ⓘ
meaning of direct taxes under the U.S. Constitution ⓘ scope of the federal taxing power ⓘ |
| locationOfCourt | Philadelphia ⓘ |
| partyType | individual versus federal government ⓘ |
| plaintiff | Daniel Hylton ⓘ |
| precedentFor |
later cases interpreting the Direct Tax Clause
ⓘ
later cases on the scope of judicial review ⓘ |
| relatedCase | Marbury v. Madison ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
apportionment of direct taxes
ⓘ
enumerated powers of Congress ⓘ federal taxation ⓘ judicial review ⓘ |
| result | federal statute upheld ⓘ |
| significance |
early interpretation of the constitutional distinction between direct and indirect taxes
ⓘ
one of the earliest exercises of judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court ⓘ precedent on the scope of congressional taxing power ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | federal revenue measure ⓘ |
| timePeriod | 18th century ⓘ |
| topic |
United States constitutional history
ⓘ
early Supreme Court jurisprudence ⓘ |
| typeOfTax | federal carriage tax ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1796 ⓘ |
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: Hylton v. United States Description of subject: Hylton v. United States was an 1796 U.S. Supreme Court case that is historically significant as one of the Court’s earliest exercises of judicial review in upholding a federal tax on carriages.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.