South Carolina v. Katzenbach
E58950
South Carolina v. Katzenbach is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, affirming broad federal power to combat racial discrimination in voting.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| South Carolina v. Katzenbach canonical | 10 |
| South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966) | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T471021 — 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: South Carolina v. Katzenbach Context triple: [Voting Rights Act of 1965, landmarkCase, South Carolina v. Katzenbach]
-
A.
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.
-
B.
Browder v. Gayle
Browder v. Gayle was the landmark 1956 federal court case that declared bus segregation in Montgomery, Alabama unconstitutional, effectively ending the Montgomery bus boycott and striking a major blow against Jim Crow laws.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
Sweatt v. Painter
Sweatt v. Painter was a landmark 1950 U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged racial segregation in higher education and helped lay the groundwork for Brown v. Board of Education.
-
E.
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by affirming Congress’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations under the Commerce 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: South Carolina v. Katzenbach Target entity description: South Carolina v. Katzenbach is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, affirming broad federal power to combat racial discrimination in voting.
-
A.
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.
-
B.
Browder v. Gayle
Browder v. Gayle was the landmark 1956 federal court case that declared bus segregation in Montgomery, Alabama unconstitutional, effectively ending the Montgomery bus boycott and striking a major blow against Jim Crow laws.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
Sweatt v. Painter
Sweatt v. Painter was a landmark 1950 U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged racial segregation in higher education and helped lay the groundwork for Brown v. Board of Education.
-
E.
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by affirming Congress’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations under the Commerce Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
constitutional law case ⓘ federalism case ⓘ voting rights case ⓘ |
| aroseUnderStatute | Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ |
| concerns |
congressional power under the Fifteenth Amendment
ⓘ
federal enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment ⓘ federalism and state sovereignty ⓘ racial discrimination in voting ⓘ voting rights ⓘ |
| hasChiefJusticeInMajority | Earl Warren ⓘ |
| hasCitation | 383 U.S. 301 ⓘ |
| hasConstitutionalBasis | Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| hasConstitutionalIssue |
relationship between federal power and state control over elections
ⓘ
scope of Congress’s enforcement power under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment ⓘ |
| hasCourt | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| hasDecisionDate | 1966-03-07 ⓘ |
| hasDissentingJustice |
Hugo Black
ⓘ
linked to:
Hugo L. Black
|
| hasLegalSignificance |
affirmed broad federal authority to intervene in state election practices to prevent racial discrimination
ⓘ
expanded understanding of congressional enforcement powers under Reconstruction Amendments ⓘ landmark decision on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ |
| hasMajorityOpinionBy | Earl Warren ⓘ |
| hasPetitioner |
State of South Carolina
ⓘ
linked to:
South Carolina
|
| hasRespondent | Nicholas deB. Katzenbach ⓘ |
| hasRespondentRole |
Attorney General of the United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States Attorney General
|
| hasVote | 8–1 ⓘ |
| hasYearDecided | 1966 ⓘ |
| held |
Congress has broad power to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment
ⓘ
Congress may use appropriate remedial measures to combat racial discrimination in voting ⓘ coverage formula for identifying jurisdictions with a history of discrimination is constitutional ⓘ federal examiners and observers in elections are constitutional ⓘ preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act are constitutional ⓘ suspension of literacy tests in covered jurisdictions is constitutional ⓘ the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a valid exercise of Congress’s enforcement power under the Fifteenth Amendment ⓘ
linked to:
Voting Rights Act of 1965
|
| isRelatedCase |
Katzenbach v. Morgan
ⓘ
Shelby County v. Holder ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal question jurisdiction ⓘ |
| originatedFrom | original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| upheldProvision |
Section 10 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
ⓘ
Section 11 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ Section 12 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ
linked to:
Section 6 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Section 13 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ
linked to:
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ
linked to:
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
Section 6 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ Section 7 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ
linked to:
Section 6 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Section 8 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ Section 9 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ |
| upheldStatute | Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ |
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: South Carolina v. Katzenbach Description of subject: South Carolina v. Katzenbach is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, affirming broad federal power to combat racial discrimination in voting.
Referenced by (11)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
linked to: South Carolina v. Katzenbach