Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority

E615012

United States Supreme Court case constitutional law case landmark case

Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority is a landmark 1936 U.S. Supreme Court decision best known for Justice Brandeis’s articulation of the “Ashwander rules,” which limit the Court’s exercise of judicial review and emphasize constitutional avoidance.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

All labels observed (3)

Label	Occurrences
Ashwander et al. v. Tennessee Valley Authority et al.	1
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority canonical	1
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s activities challenged in the case.	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T6737226 — 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: Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority
Context triple: [United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court, includesCase, Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority]

A. United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
B. Crawford v. Washington
Crawford v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped Confrontation Clause jurisprudence by holding that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
C. International Shoe Co. v. Washington
International Shoe Co. v. Washington is a landmark 1945 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the modern "minimum contacts" standard for determining when a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.
D. Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowed the standards for proving employment discrimination under Title VII, prompting Congress to later revise those standards in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
E. 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.
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: Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority
Target entity description: Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority is a landmark 1936 U.S. Supreme Court decision best known for Justice Brandeis’s articulation of the “Ashwander rules,” which limit the Court’s exercise of judicial review and emphasize constitutional avoidance.

A. United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
B. Crawford v. Washington
Crawford v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped Confrontation Clause jurisprudence by holding that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
C. International Shoe Co. v. Washington
International Shoe Co. v. Washington is a landmark 1945 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the modern "minimum contacts" standard for determining when a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.
D. Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowed the standards for proving employment discrimination under Title VII, prompting Congress to later revise those standards in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
E. 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.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (46)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ constitutional law case ⓘ landmark case ⓘ
areaOfLaw	administrative law ⓘ federal courts ⓘ separation of powers ⓘ
articulatedBy	Justice Louis D. Brandeis ⓘ
AshwanderRule	The Court will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it. ⓘ The Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied. ⓘ The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. ⓘ The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits. ⓘ The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, non-adversary proceeding. ⓘ The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. ⓘ When the validity of an act of Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, the Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided. ⓘ
AshwanderRulesCount	seven ⓘ
associatedDoctrine	avoidance of advisory opinions ⓘ avoidance of unnecessary constitutional rulings ⓘ constitutional avoidance ⓘ judicial restraint ⓘ standing doctrine ⓘ
citation	297 U.S. 288 ⓘ
concurrenceBy	Justice Louis D. Brandeis ⓘ
country	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	1936 ⓘ
defendant	Tennessee Valley Authority ⓘ
famousFor	articulation of the Ashwander rules ⓘ development of the doctrine of constitutional avoidance ⓘ limitations on the exercise of judicial review ⓘ
fullCaseName	Ashwander et al. v. Tennessee Valley Authority et al. ⓘ linked to: Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority
historicalContext	New Deal legislation and programs of the 1930s ⓘ
holding	The Court concluded that the government’s generation and sale of electric power as an incident to a valid regulatory program was constitutional. ⓘ The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s activities challenged in the case. ⓘ linked to: Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority
impact	became a leading precedent on judicial restraint in constitutional cases ⓘ influenced later Supreme Court jurisprudence on standing and justiciability ⓘ reinforced the practice of avoiding unnecessary constitutional decisions ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
legalIssue	constitutionality of the Tennessee Valley Authority ⓘ federal power over navigation and flood control ⓘ federal power to generate and sell electric power ⓘ scope of federal power under the Commerce Clause ⓘ standing to challenge federal action ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes ⓘ
plaintiff	Ashwander ⓘ
relatedEntity	Tennessee Valley Authority ⓘ
separateOpinionType	concurring opinion ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (3)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court → includesCase → Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority ⓘ

Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority → fullCaseName → Ashwander et al. v. Tennessee Valley Authority et al. ⓘ

linked to: Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority

Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority → holding → The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s activities challenged in the case. ⓘ