{ "baselineRecordCount": 162, "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "newRecordCount": 16, "newVerifiedRecords": 109, "recordCount": 178, "records": [ { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "7070e647fde063fa2680914f877c786b1e8b62c70f3f6027cc394ab33cd8c700", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:01246f11a143ecbb0adf", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "489 U.S. 189; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 194-203, 194-197, 197-201, 201-202", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "The Due Process Clause generally does not impose an affirmative duty on the state to protect a person from private violence absent custody or state-created exceptions recognized in later law.", "issueId": "issue:childcare-early-learning", "limitations": "Statutory duties, state tort law and special-relationship/state-created-danger doctrines remain distinct.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:childcare-early-learning:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:deshaney-1989", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "eb33dd371bde5167522032c3ea66817710f71870a829ae438ab14b0045f8758f", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:033ae9ba7f780ad6a0d0", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 792; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 798, 802", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Established a burden-shifting framework for certain Title VII disparate-treatment cases based on circumstantial evidence.", "issueId": "issue:women-agriculture-food-systems", "limitations": "The framework is not the only proof method and must not be treated as a finding of discrimination in any occupation or employer.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:women-agriculture-food-systems:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonnell-douglas-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:0e4ba05bec15c304e98d", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:latino-community-differences", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:latino-community-differences:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "eb33dd371bde5167522032c3ea66817710f71870a829ae438ab14b0045f8758f", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:100404052681da48815e", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 792; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 798, 802", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Established a burden-shifting framework for certain Title VII disparate-treatment cases based on circumstantial evidence.", "issueId": "issue:women-healthcare-care-work", "limitations": "The framework is not the only proof method and must not be treated as a finding of discrimination in any occupation or employer.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:women-healthcare-care-work:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonnell-douglas-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "eb33dd371bde5167522032c3ea66817710f71870a829ae438ab14b0045f8758f", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:1e6a896277cfa02148a6", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 792; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 798, 802", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Established a burden-shifting framework for certain Title VII disparate-treatment cases based on circumstantial evidence.", "issueId": "issue:women-transportation-logistics", "limitations": "The framework is not the only proof method and must not be treated as a finding of discrimination in any occupation or employer.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:women-transportation-logistics:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonnell-douglas-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "4e97e08e5bcb5a6971bd3bb81497d6981d52ff7356f61b7557d5010e0ce0a492", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:2074b043655247b0a513", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "494 U.S. 872; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 876-890, 876-882, 882-890, 2", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Neutral and generally applicable laws ordinarily do not violate the Free Exercise Clause merely because they burden religious practice.", "issueId": "issue:religious-accommodation-work", "limitations": "Statutory protections such as RFRA, individualized exemptions and targeting doctrine can change the analysis.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:religious-accommodation-work:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:employment-smith-1990", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "4e203d44207f77540b6e1a9e5906568e8fac635b67de3b2386389596c5b0f575", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:24728f4e977a55b12bd7", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 677; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 682", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Invalidated sex-based differences in military spousal-benefit eligibility.", "issueId": "issue:women-military-service-conditions", "limitations": "The fractured opinions and later doctrine should be distinguished from the specific benefits classification at issue.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:women-military-service-conditions:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:frontiero-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:34d670de41383639eeb7", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:coercive-enforcement-administrative-domination-remedy", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:coercive-enforcement-administrative-domination-remedy:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "eb33dd371bde5167522032c3ea66817710f71870a829ae438ab14b0045f8758f", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:37202ef25a8172e0c44d", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 792; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 798, 802", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Established a burden-shifting framework for certain Title VII disparate-treatment cases based on circumstantial evidence.", "issueId": "issue:women-education-academia", "limitations": "The framework is not the only proof method and must not be treated as a finding of discrimination in any occupation or employer.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:women-education-academia:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonnell-douglas-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "2f0707c150d1eff300880108446c33e4a3fee4e00ba8cb2329c6d2340433503f", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:3725ef448cbf88849ed3", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 1; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 18, 29, 40, 44", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Rejected a federal equal-protection challenge to Texas's school-finance system and did not recognize education as a fundamental right under the Federal Constitution.", "issueId": "issue:latinidad-education-pathways", "limitations": "State constitutional and statutory school-finance claims remain distinct.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:latinidad-education-pathways:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:rodriguez-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:422b52aca606223f99a2", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:black-wealth-homeownership", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:black-wealth-homeownership:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "8b64da31245d30a38fd7eb6d6c2c0145cf9f7afd0650dc75381706b8c3e52342", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:443b29097faa8d7ca597", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "418 U.S. 323; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 339, 343, 345, 347, 348, 351", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Distinguished private figures from public officials and public figures and limited presumed or punitive damages absent actual malice.", "issueId": "issue:local-journalism-and-civic-information-infrastructure", "limitations": "State defamation standards remain bounded by constitutional limits; status and damages are fact-specific.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:local-journalism-and-civic-information-infrastructure:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:gertz-1974", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "8b64da31245d30a38fd7eb6d6c2c0145cf9f7afd0650dc75381706b8c3e52342", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:4a1cecf09ce8dcf34583", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "418 U.S. 323; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 339, 343, 345, 347, 348, 351", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Distinguished private figures from public officials and public figures and limited presumed or punitive damages absent actual malice.", "issueId": "issue:latinidad-media-representation", "limitations": "State defamation standards remain bounded by constitutional limits; status and damages are fact-specific.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:latinidad-media-representation:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:gertz-1974", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "db4f792c77f60ecf1292ed1a77d4c906fad63094b30d8fcef6a59ce42ccabe72", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:4c9fcbb421ec43018876", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "467 U.S. 883; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 891-894, 891-892, 892-894, 894-898, 898-906, 898-905, 905-906", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Undocumented workers are employees under the NLRA, and retaliatory reporting to immigration authorities can be an unfair labor practice.", "issueId": "issue:immigrant-worker-rights", "limitations": "Remedies are affected by immigration law and later cases.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:immigrant-worker-rights:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:sure-tan-1984", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "4e97e08e5bcb5a6971bd3bb81497d6981d52ff7356f61b7557d5010e0ce0a492", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:4d577ee504d7f8ca23a1", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "494 U.S. 872; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 876-890, 876-882, 882-890, 2", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Neutral and generally applicable laws ordinarily do not violate the Free Exercise Clause merely because they burden religious practice.", "issueId": "issue:institutional-antisemitism-exclusion-participation", "limitations": "Statutory protections such as RFRA, individualized exemptions and targeting doctrine can change the analysis.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:institutional-antisemitism-exclusion-participation:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:employment-smith-1990", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "eb33dd371bde5167522032c3ea66817710f71870a829ae438ab14b0045f8758f", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:4f9d14338d520b990df7", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 792; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 798, 802", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Established a burden-shifting framework for certain Title VII disparate-treatment cases based on circumstantial evidence.", "issueId": "issue:women-hospitality-retail-service", "limitations": "The framework is not the only proof method and must not be treated as a finding of discrimination in any occupation or employer.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:women-hospitality-retail-service:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonnell-douglas-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "eb33dd371bde5167522032c3ea66817710f71870a829ae438ab14b0045f8758f", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:50d7c6a9e92ec989934d", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 792; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 798, 802", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Established a burden-shifting framework for certain Title VII disparate-treatment cases based on circumstantial evidence.", "issueId": "issue:workplace-racial-equity", "limitations": "The framework is not the only proof method and must not be treated as a finding of discrimination in any occupation or employer.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:workplace-racial-equity:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonnell-douglas-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:50ebb4f9caee8c88240f", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:environmental-justice-pollution-and-toxic-exposure", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:environmental-justice-pollution-and-toxic-exposure:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:52a257b2c170b6360009", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:cross-system-compounding-intersectional-amplification", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:cross-system-compounding-intersectional-amplification:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "4e97e08e5bcb5a6971bd3bb81497d6981d52ff7356f61b7557d5010e0ce0a492", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:572e2995601a851460f0", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "494 U.S. 872; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 876-890, 876-882, 882-890, 2", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Neutral and generally applicable laws ordinarily do not violate the Free Exercise Clause merely because they burden religious practice.", "issueId": "issue:religious-land-use", "limitations": "Statutory protections such as RFRA, individualized exemptions and targeting doctrine can change the analysis.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:religious-land-use:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:employment-smith-1990", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "db4f792c77f60ecf1292ed1a77d4c906fad63094b30d8fcef6a59ce42ccabe72", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:576f9502f9fadb9c69bf", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "467 U.S. 883; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 891-894, 891-892, 892-894, 894-898, 898-906, 898-905, 905-906", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Undocumented workers are employees under the NLRA, and retaliatory reporting to immigration authorities can be an unfair labor practice.", "issueId": "issue:latinidad-worker-power", "limitations": "Remedies are affected by immigration law and later cases.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:latinidad-worker-power:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:sure-tan-1984", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "eb33dd371bde5167522032c3ea66817710f71870a829ae438ab14b0045f8758f", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:5ce416c67e2393743ed5", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 792; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 798, 802", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Established a burden-shifting framework for certain Title VII disparate-treatment cases based on circumstantial evidence.", "issueId": "issue:women-indo-tibetan-safety-leadership", "limitations": "The framework is not the only proof method and must not be treated as a finding of discrimination in any occupation or employer.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:women-indo-tibetan-safety-leadership:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonnell-douglas-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:6065da46616bbcab093d", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:data-ai-mobility-gender-responsive-services", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:data-ai-mobility-gender-responsive-services:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "7070e647fde063fa2680914f877c786b1e8b62c70f3f6027cc394ab33cd8c700", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:606654d6c4e557af1e55", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "489 U.S. 189; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 194-203, 194-197, 197-201, 201-202", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "The Due Process Clause generally does not impose an affirmative duty on the state to protect a person from private violence absent custody or state-created exceptions recognized in later law.", "issueId": "issue:child-welfare-foster-care-and-youth-development", "limitations": "Statutory duties, state tort law and special-relationship/state-created-danger doctrines remain distinct.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:child-welfare-foster-care-and-youth-development:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:deshaney-1989", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "8b64da31245d30a38fd7eb6d6c2c0145cf9f7afd0650dc75381706b8c3e52342", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:6156f4e23bc6d508b225", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "418 U.S. 323; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 339, 343, 345, 347, 348, 351", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Distinguished private figures from public officials and public figures and limited presumed or punitive damages absent actual malice.", "issueId": "issue:public-figure-private-civilian-boundaries", "limitations": "State defamation standards remain bounded by constitutional limits; status and damages are fact-specific.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:public-figure-private-civilian-boundaries:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:gertz-1974", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:61c5a77abfb376e09247", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:administrative-discretion-accountability", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:administrative-discretion-accountability:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:62aa531bc335499da0f1", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:racial-data-fidelity", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:racial-data-fidelity:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "7070e647fde063fa2680914f877c786b1e8b62c70f3f6027cc394ab33cd8c700", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:631e8e75ff7a9e5c543d", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "489 U.S. 189; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 194-203, 194-197, 197-201, 201-202", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "The Due Process Clause generally does not impose an affirmative duty on the state to protect a person from private violence absent custody or state-created exceptions recognized in later law.", "issueId": "issue:care-economy", "limitations": "Statutory duties, state tort law and special-relationship/state-created-danger doctrines remain distinct.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:care-economy:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:deshaney-1989", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "cce9277aad8c7ebc6edaac1fd2981346e14c493edbf9fa0cfe57db106eaad66d", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:64c3fde903e698649a04", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "417 U.S. 484; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 491, 492", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Held that exclusion of pregnancy-related disabilities from a state insurance program was not, on that record, a sex classification under the Equal Protection Clause.", "issueId": "issue:childcare-eldercare-leave-household-decision-making", "limitations": "Subsequent statutes, including the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, materially alter employment-law analysis.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:childcare-eldercare-leave-household-decision-making:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:geduldig-1974", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "eb33dd371bde5167522032c3ea66817710f71870a829ae438ab14b0045f8758f", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:661793cd3ea5424c9449", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 792; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 798, 802", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Established a burden-shifting framework for certain Title VII disparate-treatment cases based on circumstantial evidence.", "issueId": "issue:women-law-public-safety", "limitations": "The framework is not the only proof method and must not be treated as a finding of discrimination in any occupation or employer.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:women-law-public-safety:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonnell-douglas-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:6e94bdd84b954cf4d6a4", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:housing-segregation-displacement", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:housing-segregation-displacement:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:74fbd2a7881984949d50", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:algorithmic-discrimination-surveillance", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:algorithmic-discrimination-surveillance:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "7ba60384ae8faa661f30ce4241cc5eec7b59cccc9ad55e2c012590fc3337f97c", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:8910cb590dd62f50f837", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "484 U.S. 260; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 266-276, 266-267, 267-270, 270-273, 274-273", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Schools may exercise editorial control over school-sponsored student expression when reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.", "issueId": "issue:research-editorial-independence", "limitations": "Does not govern all independent student speech and turns on whether expression is school-sponsored.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:research-editorial-independence:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:hazelwood-1988", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "eb33dd371bde5167522032c3ea66817710f71870a829ae438ab14b0045f8758f", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:8c0187e6f3e611ea624f", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 792; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 798, 802", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Established a burden-shifting framework for certain Title VII disparate-treatment cases based on circumstantial evidence.", "issueId": "issue:pay-equity", "limitations": "The framework is not the only proof method and must not be treated as a finding of discrimination in any occupation or employer.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:pay-equity:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonnell-douglas-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "18798e5126ca78712235edbf9669088f189398191f1450ec9ba552b985c74d41", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:8f1b5f6500823dfd8bfd", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "475 U.S. 503; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 506-510", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Upheld an Air Force uniform rule that prohibited an officer from wearing a yarmulke while in uniform under highly deferential review.", "issueId": "issue:racial-religious-minority-service", "limitations": "Congress later enacted statutory accommodation; current DoD policy and later religious-liberty law materially affect present analysis.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:racial-religious-minority-service:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:goldman-weinberger-1986", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:912c34a06bff0f7a79f6", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:diaspora-binational-immigrant-generation-variation", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:diaspora-binational-immigrant-generation-variation:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "eb33dd371bde5167522032c3ea66817710f71870a829ae438ab14b0045f8758f", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:92fc7f18b658dfa4d988", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 792; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 798, 802", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Established a burden-shifting framework for certain Title VII disparate-treatment cases based on circumstantial evidence.", "issueId": "issue:women-finance-professional-services", "limitations": "The framework is not the only proof method and must not be treated as a finding of discrimination in any occupation or employer.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:women-finance-professional-services:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonnell-douglas-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "8e1f0cd9deedb5902e061a01cd8e8f351313b4c3ac4a4f1b6e4aa1b42880fcd2", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:9ace278af9ef107e884d", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "429 U.S. 252; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 260-264, 261-263, 263-264, 264-271, 264-268, 268-271, 271", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Set out factors for evaluating whether discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor in government decision-making.", "issueId": "issue:cumulative-intergenerational-disadvantage", "limitations": "Disparate impact is relevant but ordinarily not dispositive; the inquiry is context- and record-specific.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:cumulative-intergenerational-disadvantage:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:arlington-heights-1977", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "bed20f80874a52b8f46b519d066d4fe07342af589e4cae236dd7a34f50771483", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:9ce49beb85b343e6121b", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "401 U.S. 815; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 820", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Upheld a statutory residence condition for a person who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth abroad by statute rather than the Fourteenth Amendment.", "issueId": "issue:tibetan-diaspora-statelessness", "limitations": "Later statutes changed retention rules; current nationality law and the person's citizenship basis must be checked.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:tibetan-diaspora-statelessness:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:rogers-bellei-1971", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "2f0707c150d1eff300880108446c33e4a3fee4e00ba8cb2329c6d2340433503f", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:9e95a28105f54d8f658c", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 1; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 18, 29, 40, 44", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Rejected a federal equal-protection challenge to Texas's school-finance system and did not recognize education as a fundamental right under the Federal Constitution.", "issueId": "issue:k-12-quality-school-finance-and-educator-capacity", "limitations": "State constitutional and statutory school-finance claims remain distinct.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:k-12-quality-school-finance-and-educator-capacity:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:rodriguez-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "44e839c6dde88b6cbd0428675e7e23f731cb06409fb4481f5ed0b3f590abac59", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:a5f5cbd23a93bdce5a57", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "480 U.S. 421; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 427-449, 430-432, 432-443, 443-445, 445-448", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Distinguished the asylum 'well-founded fear' standard from the more demanding withholding-of-removal standard.", "issueId": "issue:indo-tibetan-migration-asylum-consular", "limitations": "Eligibility still requires fact-specific proof and does not guarantee discretionary relief.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:indo-tibetan-migration-asylum-consular:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:cardoza-fonseca-1987", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "bb34fac8d90d4f447abe3e46b4679a87be7a5e6d47bd1a0051c1eb5d28189ccd", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:ac864cb3bbeaa3962a52", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "471 U.S. 1; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 7-22, 7-12, 12-20, 20-22", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Police may not use deadly force to prevent escape of an unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect.", "issueId": "issue:policing-accountability", "limitations": "Use-of-force reasonableness remains fact-specific, including threat and officer knowledge.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:policing-accountability:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:tennessee-garner-1985", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "4e97e08e5bcb5a6971bd3bb81497d6981d52ff7356f61b7557d5010e0ce0a492", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:acb96f4d5059ee48e943", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "494 U.S. 872; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 876-890, 876-882, 882-890, 2", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Neutral and generally applicable laws ordinarily do not violate the Free Exercise Clause merely because they burden religious practice.", "issueId": "issue:religious-monastic-institutions-himalaya", "limitations": "Statutory protections such as RFRA, individualized exemptions and targeting doctrine can change the analysis.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:religious-monastic-institutions-himalaya:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:employment-smith-1990", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "8e1f0cd9deedb5902e061a01cd8e8f351313b4c3ac4a4f1b6e4aa1b42880fcd2", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:af8fbe024e8c9506aa5e", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "429 U.S. 252; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 260-264, 261-263, 263-264, 264-271, 264-268, 268-271, 271", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Set out factors for evaluating whether discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor in government decision-making.", "issueId": "issue:cross-system-compounding-intersectional-amplification", "limitations": "Disparate impact is relevant but ordinarily not dispositive; the inquiry is context- and record-specific.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:cross-system-compounding-intersectional-amplification:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:arlington-heights-1977", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:afcba889467ed6bf77f7", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:racial-health-equity", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:racial-health-equity:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "eb33dd371bde5167522032c3ea66817710f71870a829ae438ab14b0045f8758f", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:b18f2e9fe7ce9ed968ad", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 792; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 798, 802", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Established a burden-shifting framework for certain Title VII disparate-treatment cases based on circumstantial evidence.", "issueId": "issue:women-media-arts-entertainment", "limitations": "The framework is not the only proof method and must not be treated as a finding of discrimination in any occupation or employer.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:women-media-arts-entertainment:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonnell-douglas-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "2f0707c150d1eff300880108446c33e4a3fee4e00ba8cb2329c6d2340433503f", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:b30f3b1e98977b51b3c0", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 1; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 18, 29, 40, 44", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Rejected a federal equal-protection challenge to Texas's school-finance system and did not recognize education as a fundamental right under the Federal Constitution.", "issueId": "issue:unequal-resource-allocation-public-investment", "limitations": "State constitutional and statutory school-finance claims remain distinct.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:unequal-resource-allocation-public-investment:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:rodriguez-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:b6a509180d585a0ec0e0", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:indo-tibetan-self-naming-data", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:indo-tibetan-self-naming-data:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:b71ecd1d6c8e1957a4f1", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:caste-colorism-phenotype-language-national-origin-hierarchy", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:caste-colorism-phenotype-language-national-origin-hierarchy:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:bc88f5817c093e62f29b", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:black-health-equity", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:black-health-equity:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:bcfd0f318e58a29002da", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:anti-asian-bias", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:anti-asian-bias:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:bebedac4a80f917071bb", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:institutional-rule-design-disparate-implementation", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:institutional-rule-design-disparate-implementation:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "4082065310ce1db919da6143a0a08618075660ac8cc81f0e8e4b46ede9fa7e3d", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:bf76e955b8f45c0b222d", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "521 U.S. 844; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 2341, 2351", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Invalidated broad federal restrictions on indecent online communications as violating the First Amendment.", "issueId": "issue:youth-digital-wellbeing-and-online-safety", "limitations": "Does not prevent narrower regulation of obscenity, child sexual abuse material, commercial conduct or valid age protections.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:youth-digital-wellbeing-and-online-safety:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:reno-aclu-1997", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "bb34fac8d90d4f447abe3e46b4679a87be7a5e6d47bd1a0051c1eb5d28189ccd", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:c1a012f02bd7ca66681f", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "471 U.S. 1; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 7-22, 7-12, 12-20, 20-22", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Police may not use deadly force to prevent escape of an unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect.", "issueId": "issue:black-youth-safety", "limitations": "Use-of-force reasonableness remains fact-specific, including threat and officer knowledge.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:black-youth-safety:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:tennessee-garner-1985", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "bed20f80874a52b8f46b519d066d4fe07342af589e4cae236dd7a34f50771483", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:c5266649b03998b54343", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "401 U.S. 815; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 820", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Upheld a statutory residence condition for a person who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth abroad by statute rather than the Fourteenth Amendment.", "issueId": "issue:dual-citizenship-participation", "limitations": "Later statutes changed retention rules; current nationality law and the person's citizenship basis must be checked.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:dual-citizenship-participation:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:rogers-bellei-1971", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "cce9277aad8c7ebc6edaac1fd2981346e14c493edbf9fa0cfe57db106eaad66d", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:c61f6ce64db3f3506d38", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "417 U.S. 484; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 491, 492", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Held that exclusion of pregnancy-related disabilities from a state insurance program was not, on that record, a sex classification under the Equal Protection Clause.", "issueId": "issue:maternal-health", "limitations": "Subsequent statutes, including the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, materially alter employment-law analysis.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:maternal-health:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:geduldig-1974", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "4e97e08e5bcb5a6971bd3bb81497d6981d52ff7356f61b7557d5010e0ce0a492", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:c71feed1fc9a614fe02a", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "494 U.S. 872; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 876-890, 876-882, 882-890, 2", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Neutral and generally applicable laws ordinarily do not violate the Free Exercise Clause merely because they burden religious practice.", "issueId": "issue:sikh-hindu-buddhist-minorities", "limitations": "Statutory protections such as RFRA, individualized exemptions and targeting doctrine can change the analysis.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:sikh-hindu-buddhist-minorities:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:employment-smith-1990", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "2f0707c150d1eff300880108446c33e4a3fee4e00ba8cb2329c6d2340433503f", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:cd19c6a38f190f29afb9", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 1; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 18, 29, 40, 44", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Rejected a federal equal-protection challenge to Texas's school-finance system and did not recognize education as a fundamental right under the Federal Constitution.", "issueId": "issue:indo-tibetan-youth-education-belonging", "limitations": "State constitutional and statutory school-finance claims remain distinct.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:indo-tibetan-youth-education-belonging:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:rodriguez-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "eb33dd371bde5167522032c3ea66817710f71870a829ae438ab14b0045f8758f", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:ceed4d3873b17f0ce692", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 792; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 798, 802", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Established a burden-shifting framework for certain Title VII disparate-treatment cases based on circumstantial evidence.", "issueId": "issue:workplace-leadership-bargaining-governance-accountability", "limitations": "The framework is not the only proof method and must not be treated as a finding of discrimination in any occupation or employer.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:workplace-leadership-bargaining-governance-accountability:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonnell-douglas-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:cf2ad493011e651407ad", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:latinidad-health-access", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:latinidad-health-access:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "8b64da31245d30a38fd7eb6d6c2c0145cf9f7afd0650dc75381706b8c3e52342", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:d0f8848f25731201e649", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "418 U.S. 323; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 339, 343, 345, 347, 348, 351", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Distinguished private figures from public officials and public figures and limited presumed or punitive damages absent actual malice.", "issueId": "issue:media-representation", "limitations": "State defamation standards remain bounded by constitutional limits; status and damages are fact-specific.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:media-representation:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:gertz-1974", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "1c4e44676c837dcf7023fdc02c7aef742be929b93f8f791abd4c40d724785f38", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:d7045aeba8df49e2f36d", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "490 U.S. 386; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 392-399, 393-394, 394-395, 396-397, 397-399", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Excessive-force claims during seizure are judged under Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness.", "issueId": "issue:policing-accountability", "limitations": "The standard is deferential to on-scene circumstances and does not itself prescribe agency policy or accountability systems.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:policing-accountability:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:graham-connor-1989", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "4e97e08e5bcb5a6971bd3bb81497d6981d52ff7356f61b7557d5010e0ce0a492", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:d88a6f8bdb6f2cb3a952", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "494 U.S. 872; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 876-890, 876-882, 882-890, 2", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Neutral and generally applicable laws ordinarily do not violate the Free Exercise Clause merely because they burden religious practice.", "issueId": "issue:substance-use-overdose-prevention-and-recovery", "limitations": "Statutory protections such as RFRA, individualized exemptions and targeting doctrine can change the analysis.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:substance-use-overdose-prevention-and-recovery:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:employment-smith-1990", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "eb33dd371bde5167522032c3ea66817710f71870a829ae438ab14b0045f8758f", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:d93983306822f6605404", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 792; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 798, 802", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Established a burden-shifting framework for certain Title VII disparate-treatment cases based on circumstantial evidence.", "issueId": "issue:women-technology-engineering", "limitations": "The framework is not the only proof method and must not be treated as a finding of discrimination in any occupation or employer.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:women-technology-engineering:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonnell-douglas-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:dadc489e6ed42593177f", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:cumulative-intergenerational-disadvantage", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:cumulative-intergenerational-disadvantage:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "eb33dd371bde5167522032c3ea66817710f71870a829ae438ab14b0045f8758f", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:de23100424cd8d9e32a1", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 792; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 798, 802", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Established a burden-shifting framework for certain Title VII disparate-treatment cases based on circumstantial evidence.", "issueId": "issue:women-skilled-trades-construction", "limitations": "The framework is not the only proof method and must not be treated as a finding of discrimination in any occupation or employer.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:women-skilled-trades-construction:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonnell-douglas-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:e4e13653f5c25b2a5f72", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:algorithmic-public-systems", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:algorithmic-public-systems:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:e547373b857ba27620e0", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:anti-asian-misclassification-indo-tibetan", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:anti-asian-misclassification-indo-tibetan:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "1c4e44676c837dcf7023fdc02c7aef742be929b93f8f791abd4c40d724785f38", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:ea591e4950c3aac5df8d", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "490 U.S. 386; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 392-399, 393-394, 394-395, 396-397, 397-399", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Excessive-force claims during seizure are judged under Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness.", "issueId": "issue:black-youth-safety", "limitations": "The standard is deferential to on-scene circumstances and does not itself prescribe agency policy or accountability systems.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:black-youth-safety:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:graham-connor-1989", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:ec65a971d2740cc6db5f", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:latinidad-data-fidelity", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:latinidad-data-fidelity:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-disconfirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "56d5be17c563a06826c57546a28fd6614fd641b4cd0f5d44b16532d634f57511", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:f04ca47629c112b2f077", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "426 U.S. 229; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 238-248, 239-245, 245-246, 246, 246-248, 248-252", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "A racially disproportionate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal-protection violation.", "issueId": "issue:data-classification-measurement-fidelity", "limitations": "Statutory disparate-impact regimes may apply even when constitutional intent is not proven.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:data-classification-measurement-fidelity:rulings-disconfirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:washington-davis-1976", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "CONTRADICTS_OR_LIMITS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "4e203d44207f77540b6e1a9e5906568e8fac635b67de3b2386389596c5b0f575", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:f3bf099dd4736945d10c", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 677; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 682", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Invalidated sex-based differences in military spousal-benefit eligibility.", "issueId": "issue:military-entry-retention-promotion", "limitations": "The fractured opinions and later doctrine should be distinguished from the specific benefits classification at issue.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:military-entry-retention-promotion:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:frontiero-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "4e203d44207f77540b6e1a9e5906568e8fac635b67de3b2386389596c5b0f575", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:f5bc8321c49d9224d608", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 677; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 682", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Invalidated sex-based differences in military spousal-benefit eligibility.", "issueId": "issue:military-family-care-mobility", "limitations": "The fractured opinions and later doctrine should be distinguished from the specific benefits classification at issue.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:military-family-care-mobility:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:frontiero-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "eb33dd371bde5167522032c3ea66817710f71870a829ae438ab14b0045f8758f", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:fbead32150cb61ab87b6", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "411 U.S. 792; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 798, 802", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Established a burden-shifting framework for certain Title VII disparate-treatment cases based on circumstantial evidence.", "issueId": "issue:women-manufacturing-industrial-work", "limitations": "The framework is not the only proof method and must not be treated as a finding of discrimination in any occupation or employer.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:women-manufacturing-industrial-work:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonnell-douglas-1973", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "44e839c6dde88b6cbd0428675e7e23f731cb06409fb4481f5ed0b3f590abac59", "countryId": null, "evidenceId": "evidence:v724:ffd88d1aae3f4bf0bd95", "evidenceType": "JUDICIAL_HOLDING", "exactLocator": "480 U.S. 421; Syllabus, Held section; opinion reporter pages 427-449, 430-432, 432-443, 443-445, 445-448", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "holdingSummary": "Distinguished the asylum 'well-founded fear' standard from the more demanding withholding-of-removal standard.", "issueId": "issue:asylum-access", "limitations": "Eligibility still requires fact-specific proof and does not guarantee discretionary relief.", "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:asylum-access:rulings-confirmatory", "retrievalState": "EXTRACTABLE", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:cardoza-fonseca-1987", "stakeholderId": null, "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS", "supportStrength": "PARTIAL_REQUEST_SUPPORT", "validationState": "SUPPORTED_WITHIN_RECORDED_HOLDING_AND_LIMITATIONS", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "aa3bd3f89970e65ecf4efdb317a72f21d8dd9d179300aeb227a1c71abafbe01f", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:implementation", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:0aa113f5f8ce9d6bdc1e", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "435 U.S. 247, Syllabus and opinion pp. 254-267", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The damages analysis is tied to procedural due process and does not determine remedies for every constitutional or statutory violation.", "proposition": "Compensatory damages for a procedural due-process violation require proof of actual injury, while nominal damages may be available for the deprivation itself under the circumstances described by the Court.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:carey-piphus-1978", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "c2928d5a5efb21fb79bc4e690c0216dd49ad1df9a773eeeea8b0c3285ea936a1", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:associational-reputation:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:associational-reputation" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:0e6c5c3b8a86fc1dee12", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "357 U.S. 449, Syllabus and opinion pp. 460-466", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:associational-reputation", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The holding rests on the specific disclosure demand, record, state interest, and constitutional posture; it does not make all disclosure requirements invalid.", "proposition": "Compelled disclosure of an association's membership may burden protected association when the record demonstrates a substantial restraint on members' freedom of association.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:associational-reputation:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:naacp-alabama-1958", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "177d86275687a50232098c0d3e8b9a23caf2337bcd58681a2dc4c1d39bbb0eb7", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:damages-remedies:implementation", "issue:damages-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:15022a8a7c71be058527", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 1988(a)-(c); 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:damages-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "Fee eligibility, prevailing-party status, exceptions, and the underlying cause of action remain separate questions. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Section 1988 supplies specified remedial rules, including discretionary attorney-fee authority for enumerated civil-rights enforcement actions.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:damages-remedies:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-42-1988", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "f954720ea33c0be59d96dcb7487428f8d7bfc47958a58ac3e751d36e7e8d20c5", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:racial-employment-discrimination:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:racial-employment-discrimination" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:18437f76d2cdcb9040fb", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "427 U.S. 273, Syllabus and opinion pp. 278-296", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:racial-employment-discrimination", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish harassment or discrimination in unrelated settings and does not collapse disparate legal theories into a single rule.", "proposition": "Title VII's race-discrimination prohibition protects white employees as well as employees of other races, subject to the statute's elements and the facts of the employment action.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:racial-employment-discrimination:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonald-santa-fe-1976", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "c2928d5a5efb21fb79bc4e690c0216dd49ad1df9a773eeeea8b0c3285ea936a1", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:associational-privacy:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:associational-privacy" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:1885be1e38c53236f549", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "357 U.S. 449, Syllabus and opinion pp. 460-466", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:associational-privacy", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The holding rests on the specific disclosure demand, record, state interest, and constitutional posture; it does not make all disclosure requirements invalid.", "proposition": "Compelled disclosure of an association's membership may burden protected association when the record demonstrates a substantial restraint on members' freedom of association.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:associational-privacy:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:naacp-alabama-1958", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "ddedb35cb8bc72092182c6bf90badbe6ddc6af2105a3844499333a74976a85da", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:employment-reputation:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:employment-reputation" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:1ed8555a52028ea18053", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "429 U.S. 624, opinion pp. 627-628", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:employment-reputation", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The per curiam decision addresses the pleaded due-process theory and record before it, not every employment or defamation remedy.", "proposition": "A name-clearing hearing claim requires a material factual dispute about the stigmatizing information; the decision limits relief where the employee does not challenge substantial truth.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:employment-reputation:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:codd-velger-1977", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "524094aa594114d8d0159ec60857d11cfa223ca210ad0b1fd872c020b1fa3f26", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:academic-reputation:definition-authority", "issue:academic-reputation" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:1fe39d7fc3c3b9905e01", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "497 U.S. 1, Syllabus and opinion pp. 17-21", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:academic-reputation", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish liability for any particular statement and must be applied with the full constitutional and state-law elements.", "proposition": "The First Amendment does not create a wholesale defamation exemption for every statement labeled opinion; the inquiry includes whether the challenged statement is sufficiently factual and provably false.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:academic-reputation:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:milkovich-lorain-journal-1990", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "aa3bd3f89970e65ecf4efdb317a72f21d8dd9d179300aeb227a1c71abafbe01f", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:damages-remedies:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:damages-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:21f726f289f96a777a65", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "435 U.S. 247, Syllabus and opinion pp. 254-267", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:damages-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The damages analysis is tied to procedural due process and does not determine remedies for every constitutional or statutory violation.", "proposition": "Compensatory damages for a procedural due-process violation require proof of actual injury, while nominal damages may be available for the deprivation itself under the circumstances described by the Court.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:damages-remedies:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:carey-piphus-1978", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "f954720ea33c0be59d96dcb7487428f8d7bfc47958a58ac3e751d36e7e8d20c5", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:racial-employment-discrimination:definition-authority", "issue:racial-employment-discrimination" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:226408e2132ec57569ec", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "427 U.S. 273, Syllabus and opinion pp. 278-296", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:racial-employment-discrimination", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish harassment or discrimination in unrelated settings and does not collapse disparate legal theories into a single rule.", "proposition": "Title VII's race-discrimination prohibition protects white employees as well as employees of other races, subject to the statute's elements and the facts of the employment action.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:racial-employment-discrimination:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonald-santa-fe-1976", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "524094aa594114d8d0159ec60857d11cfa223ca210ad0b1fd872c020b1fa3f26", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:academic-reputation:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:academic-reputation" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:27a8e0fc816519e5ee1f", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "497 U.S. 1, Syllabus and opinion pp. 17-21", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:academic-reputation", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish liability for any particular statement and must be applied with the full constitutional and state-law elements.", "proposition": "The First Amendment does not create a wholesale defamation exemption for every statement labeled opinion; the inquiry includes whether the challenged statement is sufficiently factual and provably false.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:academic-reputation:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:milkovich-lorain-journal-1990", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "f954720ea33c0be59d96dcb7487428f8d7bfc47958a58ac3e751d36e7e8d20c5", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:racial-employment-discrimination:implementation", "issue:racial-employment-discrimination" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:2b89d9abf404e7150104", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "427 U.S. 273, Syllabus and opinion pp. 278-296", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:racial-employment-discrimination", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish harassment or discrimination in unrelated settings and does not collapse disparate legal theories into a single rule.", "proposition": "Title VII's race-discrimination prohibition protects white employees as well as employees of other races, subject to the statute's elements and the facts of the employment action.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:racial-employment-discrimination:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonald-santa-fe-1976", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "177d86275687a50232098c0d3e8b9a23caf2337bcd58681a2dc4c1d39bbb0eb7", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:2bd558b9beb418036674", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 1988(a)-(c); 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "Fee eligibility, prevailing-party status, exceptions, and the underlying cause of action remain separate questions. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Section 1988 supplies specified remedial rules, including discretionary attorney-fee authority for enumerated civil-rights enforcement actions.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-42-1988", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "c5965f465f06dc45820ec0b160c49e871f674096dfebbadae6600c12d3a175c7", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:doxxing:implementation", "issue:doxxing" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:30dee8a6939116f8e600", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "18 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(b); 2024 Edition, Title 18 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:doxxing", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The provision covers defined persons and elements; it is not a general federal prohibition on every form of doxxing. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Federal law prohibits specified intentional publication of restricted personal information about covered persons when the statutory threat, intimidation, or violence-facilitation elements are met.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:doxxing:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-18-119", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "f954720ea33c0be59d96dcb7487428f8d7bfc47958a58ac3e751d36e7e8d20c5", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:anti-white-racial-harassment:definition-authority", "issue:anti-white-racial-harassment" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:30f6ac2bb00c8c19fab7", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "427 U.S. 273, Syllabus and opinion pp. 278-296", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:anti-white-racial-harassment", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish harassment or discrimination in unrelated settings and does not collapse disparate legal theories into a single rule.", "proposition": "Title VII's race-discrimination prohibition protects white employees as well as employees of other races, subject to the statute's elements and the facts of the employment action.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:anti-white-racial-harassment:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonald-santa-fe-1976", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "c2928d5a5efb21fb79bc4e690c0216dd49ad1df9a773eeeea8b0c3285ea936a1", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:associational-privacy:definition-authority", "issue:associational-privacy" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:3103eaa86bbbfb59bc68", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "357 U.S. 449, Syllabus and opinion pp. 460-466", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:associational-privacy", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The holding rests on the specific disclosure demand, record, state interest, and constitutional posture; it does not make all disclosure requirements invalid.", "proposition": "Compelled disclosure of an association's membership may burden protected association when the record demonstrates a substantial restraint on members' freedom of association.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:associational-privacy:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:naacp-alabama-1958", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "aa3bd3f89970e65ecf4efdb317a72f21d8dd9d179300aeb227a1c71abafbe01f", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:32609a54466355c58c81", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "435 U.S. 247, Syllabus and opinion pp. 254-267", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The damages analysis is tied to procedural due process and does not determine remedies for every constitutional or statutory violation.", "proposition": "Compensatory damages for a procedural due-process violation require proof of actual injury, while nominal damages may be available for the deprivation itself under the circumstances described by the Court.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:carey-piphus-1978", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "fca08dd88421ce1e95c5376b65840fc50f9df55dd21597c66a0bce1844304a73", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status:definition-authority", "issue:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:3314081d942f8ff40a2a", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "424 U.S. 693, Syllabus and opinion pp. 701-712", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The opinion addresses the federal constitutional claim before the Court; it does not eliminate state-law defamation remedies or resolve every status-plus theory.", "proposition": "The decision limits federal due-process treatment of reputational injury standing alone and distinguishes reputation from a qualifying alteration of a protected legal status or right.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:paul-davis-1976", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "524094aa594114d8d0159ec60857d11cfa223ca210ad0b1fd872c020b1fa3f26", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:academic-reputation:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:academic-reputation" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:35b89de5466d0637ef31", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "497 U.S. 1, Syllabus and opinion pp. 17-21", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:academic-reputation", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish liability for any particular statement and must be applied with the full constitutional and state-law elements.", "proposition": "The First Amendment does not create a wholesale defamation exemption for every statement labeled opinion; the inquiry includes whether the challenged statement is sufficiently factual and provably false.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:academic-reputation:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:milkovich-lorain-journal-1990", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "f954720ea33c0be59d96dcb7487428f8d7bfc47958a58ac3e751d36e7e8d20c5", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:anti-white-racial-harassment:implementation", "issue:anti-white-racial-harassment" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:374e8322a2a9cf0d541d", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "427 U.S. 273, Syllabus and opinion pp. 278-296", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:anti-white-racial-harassment", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish harassment or discrimination in unrelated settings and does not collapse disparate legal theories into a single rule.", "proposition": "Title VII's race-discrimination prohibition protects white employees as well as employees of other races, subject to the statute's elements and the facts of the employment action.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:anti-white-racial-harassment:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonald-santa-fe-1976", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "177d86275687a50232098c0d3e8b9a23caf2337bcd58681a2dc4c1d39bbb0eb7", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:damages-remedies:definition-authority", "issue:damages-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:3a2714bd3bb2aa9526a3", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 1988(a)-(c); 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:damages-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "Fee eligibility, prevailing-party status, exceptions, and the underlying cause of action remain separate questions. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Section 1988 supplies specified remedial rules, including discretionary attorney-fee authority for enumerated civil-rights enforcement actions.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:damages-remedies:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-42-1988", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "177d86275687a50232098c0d3e8b9a23caf2337bcd58681a2dc4c1d39bbb0eb7", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:3f0d66f8396ec4c5c5a3", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 1988(a)-(c); 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "Fee eligibility, prevailing-party status, exceptions, and the underlying cause of action remain separate questions. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Section 1988 supplies specified remedial rules, including discretionary attorney-fee authority for enumerated civil-rights enforcement actions.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-42-1988", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "ddedb35cb8bc72092182c6bf90badbe6ddc6af2105a3844499333a74976a85da", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:implementation", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:3f5f1a7bdd88cc5d385d", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "429 U.S. 624, opinion pp. 627-628", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The per curiam decision addresses the pleaded due-process theory and record before it, not every employment or defamation remedy.", "proposition": "A name-clearing hearing claim requires a material factual dispute about the stigmatizing information; the decision limits relief where the employee does not challenge substantial truth.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:codd-velger-1977", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "c2928d5a5efb21fb79bc4e690c0216dd49ad1df9a773eeeea8b0c3285ea936a1", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:associational-reputation:implementation", "issue:associational-reputation" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:4230afcb03227f5dfe0d", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "357 U.S. 449, Syllabus and opinion pp. 460-466", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:associational-reputation", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The holding rests on the specific disclosure demand, record, state interest, and constitutional posture; it does not make all disclosure requirements invalid.", "proposition": "Compelled disclosure of an association's membership may burden protected association when the record demonstrates a substantial restraint on members' freedom of association.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:associational-reputation:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:naacp-alabama-1958", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "524094aa594114d8d0159ec60857d11cfa223ca210ad0b1fd872c020b1fa3f26", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:protected-opinion:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:protected-opinion" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:44c08589ceea1d675393", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "497 U.S. 1, Syllabus and opinion pp. 17-21", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:protected-opinion", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish liability for any particular statement and must be applied with the full constitutional and state-law elements.", "proposition": "The First Amendment does not create a wholesale defamation exemption for every statement labeled opinion; the inquiry includes whether the challenged statement is sufficiently factual and provably false.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:protected-opinion:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:milkovich-lorain-journal-1990", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "fca08dd88421ce1e95c5376b65840fc50f9df55dd21597c66a0bce1844304a73", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:46ef2c437b04548eb847", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "424 U.S. 693, Syllabus and opinion pp. 701-712", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The opinion addresses the federal constitutional claim before the Court; it does not eliminate state-law defamation remedies or resolve every status-plus theory.", "proposition": "The decision limits federal due-process treatment of reputational injury standing alone and distinguishes reputation from a qualifying alteration of a protected legal status or right.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:paul-davis-1976", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "cee3926a37b9f0d1b1cef12ae38244f46ac468c881c26ca05adcc24bac189d2e", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:damages-remedies:definition-authority", "issue:damages-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:47c7acb0f8cc341cb61c", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 1983; 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:damages-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The statute does not itself establish that a particular right was violated, overcome immunities, or determine the available remedy. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Section 1983 creates a civil redress mechanism for qualifying deprivations of federal rights under color of state or territorial law, subject to the provision's text and governing doctrine.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:damages-remedies:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-42-1983", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "177d86275687a50232098c0d3e8b9a23caf2337bcd58681a2dc4c1d39bbb0eb7", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:damages-remedies:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:damages-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:49e0a67e65c0f17b9b11", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 1988(a)-(c); 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:damages-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "Fee eligibility, prevailing-party status, exceptions, and the underlying cause of action remain separate questions. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Section 1988 supplies specified remedial rules, including discretionary attorney-fee authority for enumerated civil-rights enforcement actions.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:damages-remedies:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-42-1988", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "ddedb35cb8bc72092182c6bf90badbe6ddc6af2105a3844499333a74976a85da", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:employment-reputation:implementation", "issue:employment-reputation" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:4d3db4d597f2ffff2b2f", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "429 U.S. 624, opinion pp. 627-628", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:employment-reputation", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The per curiam decision addresses the pleaded due-process theory and record before it, not every employment or defamation remedy.", "proposition": "A name-clearing hearing claim requires a material factual dispute about the stigmatizing information; the decision limits relief where the employee does not challenge substantial truth.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:employment-reputation:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:codd-velger-1977", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "cee3926a37b9f0d1b1cef12ae38244f46ac468c881c26ca05adcc24bac189d2e", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:52a5ca0dedb1a72aadee", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 1983; 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The statute does not itself establish that a particular right was violated, overcome immunities, or determine the available remedy. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Section 1983 creates a civil redress mechanism for qualifying deprivations of federal rights under color of state or territorial law, subject to the provision's text and governing doctrine.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-42-1983", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "524094aa594114d8d0159ec60857d11cfa223ca210ad0b1fd872c020b1fa3f26", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:protected-opinion:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:protected-opinion" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:55148c623a7ce258e3c0", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "497 U.S. 1, Syllabus and opinion pp. 17-21", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:protected-opinion", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish liability for any particular statement and must be applied with the full constitutional and state-law elements.", "proposition": "The First Amendment does not create a wholesale defamation exemption for every statement labeled opinion; the inquiry includes whether the challenged statement is sufficiently factual and provably false.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:protected-opinion:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:milkovich-lorain-journal-1990", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "f954720ea33c0be59d96dcb7487428f8d7bfc47958a58ac3e751d36e7e8d20c5", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:anti-white-racial-harassment:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:anti-white-racial-harassment" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:5c2272b2db54bbc30c9c", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "427 U.S. 273, Syllabus and opinion pp. 278-296", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:anti-white-racial-harassment", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish harassment or discrimination in unrelated settings and does not collapse disparate legal theories into a single rule.", "proposition": "Title VII's race-discrimination prohibition protects white employees as well as employees of other races, subject to the statute's elements and the facts of the employment action.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:anti-white-racial-harassment:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonald-santa-fe-1976", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "ddedb35cb8bc72092182c6bf90badbe6ddc6af2105a3844499333a74976a85da", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:employment-reputation:definition-authority", "issue:employment-reputation" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:5ed2c278742d07ffcb89", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "429 U.S. 624, opinion pp. 627-628", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:employment-reputation", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The per curiam decision addresses the pleaded due-process theory and record before it, not every employment or defamation remedy.", "proposition": "A name-clearing hearing claim requires a material factual dispute about the stigmatizing information; the decision limits relief where the employee does not challenge substantial truth.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:employment-reputation:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:codd-velger-1977", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "177d86275687a50232098c0d3e8b9a23caf2337bcd58681a2dc4c1d39bbb0eb7", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:definition-authority", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:6151af08e1fc96c96985", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 1988(a)-(c); 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "Fee eligibility, prevailing-party status, exceptions, and the underlying cause of action remain separate questions. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Section 1988 supplies specified remedial rules, including discretionary attorney-fee authority for enumerated civil-rights enforcement actions.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-42-1988", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "524094aa594114d8d0159ec60857d11cfa223ca210ad0b1fd872c020b1fa3f26", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:protected-opinion:definition-authority", "issue:protected-opinion" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:653f34146b0f47589a40", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "497 U.S. 1, Syllabus and opinion pp. 17-21", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:protected-opinion", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish liability for any particular statement and must be applied with the full constitutional and state-law elements.", "proposition": "The First Amendment does not create a wholesale defamation exemption for every statement labeled opinion; the inquiry includes whether the challenged statement is sufficiently factual and provably false.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:protected-opinion:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:milkovich-lorain-journal-1990", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "f954720ea33c0be59d96dcb7487428f8d7bfc47958a58ac3e751d36e7e8d20c5", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:anti-white-racial-harassment:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:anti-white-racial-harassment" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:685c697aae7c0e235eaf", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "427 U.S. 273, Syllabus and opinion pp. 278-296", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:anti-white-racial-harassment", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish harassment or discrimination in unrelated settings and does not collapse disparate legal theories into a single rule.", "proposition": "Title VII's race-discrimination prohibition protects white employees as well as employees of other races, subject to the statute's elements and the facts of the employment action.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:anti-white-racial-harassment:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonald-santa-fe-1976", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "ddedb35cb8bc72092182c6bf90badbe6ddc6af2105a3844499333a74976a85da", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:6b477b418b839d5935d5", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "429 U.S. 624, opinion pp. 627-628", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The per curiam decision addresses the pleaded due-process theory and record before it, not every employment or defamation remedy.", "proposition": "A name-clearing hearing claim requires a material factual dispute about the stigmatizing information; the decision limits relief where the employee does not challenge substantial truth.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:codd-velger-1977", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "fca08dd88421ce1e95c5376b65840fc50f9df55dd21597c66a0bce1844304a73", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:implementation", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:704e8ad62e9f0b790f63", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "424 U.S. 693, Syllabus and opinion pp. 701-712", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The opinion addresses the federal constitutional claim before the Court; it does not eliminate state-law defamation remedies or resolve every status-plus theory.", "proposition": "The decision limits federal due-process treatment of reputational injury standing alone and distinguishes reputation from a qualifying alteration of a protected legal status or right.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:paul-davis-1976", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "c5965f465f06dc45820ec0b160c49e871f674096dfebbadae6600c12d3a175c7", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:doxxing:definition-authority", "issue:doxxing" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:7f292a2d5afc1c605680", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "18 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(b); 2024 Edition, Title 18 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:doxxing", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The provision covers defined persons and elements; it is not a general federal prohibition on every form of doxxing. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Federal law prohibits specified intentional publication of restricted personal information about covered persons when the statutory threat, intimidation, or violence-facilitation elements are met.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:doxxing:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-18-119", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "524094aa594114d8d0159ec60857d11cfa223ca210ad0b1fd872c020b1fa3f26", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:defamatory-factual-assertions:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:defamatory-factual-assertions" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:7f9ec33de73661ef1ff8", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "497 U.S. 1, Syllabus and opinion pp. 17-21", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:defamatory-factual-assertions", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish liability for any particular statement and must be applied with the full constitutional and state-law elements.", "proposition": "The First Amendment does not create a wholesale defamation exemption for every statement labeled opinion; the inquiry includes whether the challenged statement is sufficiently factual and provably false.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:defamatory-factual-assertions:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:milkovich-lorain-journal-1990", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "c2928d5a5efb21fb79bc4e690c0216dd49ad1df9a773eeeea8b0c3285ea936a1", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:freedom-to-form-voluntary-associations:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:freedom-to-form-voluntary-associations" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:8086ffd76f7a860d0fb6", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "357 U.S. 449, Syllabus and opinion pp. 460-466", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:freedom-to-form-voluntary-associations", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The holding rests on the specific disclosure demand, record, state interest, and constitutional posture; it does not make all disclosure requirements invalid.", "proposition": "Compelled disclosure of an association's membership may burden protected association when the record demonstrates a substantial restraint on members' freedom of association.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:freedom-to-form-voluntary-associations:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:naacp-alabama-1958", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "cee3926a37b9f0d1b1cef12ae38244f46ac468c881c26ca05adcc24bac189d2e", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:87c7ae3f80c23163d87b", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 1983; 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The statute does not itself establish that a particular right was violated, overcome immunities, or determine the available remedy. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Section 1983 creates a civil redress mechanism for qualifying deprivations of federal rights under color of state or territorial law, subject to the provision's text and governing doctrine.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-42-1983", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "ddedb35cb8bc72092182c6bf90badbe6ddc6af2105a3844499333a74976a85da", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status:implementation", "issue:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:8a02c71dcf460b0eeae4", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "429 U.S. 624, opinion pp. 627-628", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The per curiam decision addresses the pleaded due-process theory and record before it, not every employment or defamation remedy.", "proposition": "A name-clearing hearing claim requires a material factual dispute about the stigmatizing information; the decision limits relief where the employee does not challenge substantial truth.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:codd-velger-1977", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "fca08dd88421ce1e95c5376b65840fc50f9df55dd21597c66a0bce1844304a73", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:employment-reputation:implementation", "issue:employment-reputation" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:8b6e886513b230c92c9f", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "424 U.S. 693, Syllabus and opinion pp. 701-712", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:employment-reputation", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The opinion addresses the federal constitutional claim before the Court; it does not eliminate state-law defamation remedies or resolve every status-plus theory.", "proposition": "The decision limits federal due-process treatment of reputational injury standing alone and distinguishes reputation from a qualifying alteration of a protected legal status or right.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:employment-reputation:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:paul-davis-1976", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "f954720ea33c0be59d96dcb7487428f8d7bfc47958a58ac3e751d36e7e8d20c5", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:racial-employment-discrimination:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:racial-employment-discrimination" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:8f31ff67fa2656b70198", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "427 U.S. 273, Syllabus and opinion pp. 278-296", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:racial-employment-discrimination", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish harassment or discrimination in unrelated settings and does not collapse disparate legal theories into a single rule.", "proposition": "Title VII's race-discrimination prohibition protects white employees as well as employees of other races, subject to the statute's elements and the facts of the employment action.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:racial-employment-discrimination:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:mcdonald-santa-fe-1976", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "524094aa594114d8d0159ec60857d11cfa223ca210ad0b1fd872c020b1fa3f26", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:protected-opinion:implementation", "issue:protected-opinion" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:94152c43c270e1782684", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "497 U.S. 1, Syllabus and opinion pp. 17-21", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:protected-opinion", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish liability for any particular statement and must be applied with the full constitutional and state-law elements.", "proposition": "The First Amendment does not create a wholesale defamation exemption for every statement labeled opinion; the inquiry includes whether the challenged statement is sufficiently factual and provably false.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:protected-opinion:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:milkovich-lorain-journal-1990", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "aa3bd3f89970e65ecf4efdb317a72f21d8dd9d179300aeb227a1c71abafbe01f", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:damages-remedies:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:damages-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:9535e8f7f69fa0ef9172", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "435 U.S. 247, Syllabus and opinion pp. 254-267", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:damages-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The damages analysis is tied to procedural due process and does not determine remedies for every constitutional or statutory violation.", "proposition": "Compensatory damages for a procedural due-process violation require proof of actual injury, while nominal damages may be available for the deprivation itself under the circumstances described by the Court.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:damages-remedies:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:carey-piphus-1978", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "fca08dd88421ce1e95c5376b65840fc50f9df55dd21597c66a0bce1844304a73", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:97b7241cc9b013d95034", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "424 U.S. 693, Syllabus and opinion pp. 701-712", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The opinion addresses the federal constitutional claim before the Court; it does not eliminate state-law defamation remedies or resolve every status-plus theory.", "proposition": "The decision limits federal due-process treatment of reputational injury standing alone and distinguishes reputation from a qualifying alteration of a protected legal status or right.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:paul-davis-1976", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "ddedb35cb8bc72092182c6bf90badbe6ddc6af2105a3844499333a74976a85da", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:9a270eee3730c6c4a130", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "429 U.S. 624, opinion pp. 627-628", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The per curiam decision addresses the pleaded due-process theory and record before it, not every employment or defamation remedy.", "proposition": "A name-clearing hearing claim requires a material factual dispute about the stigmatizing information; the decision limits relief where the employee does not challenge substantial truth.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:codd-velger-1977", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "177d86275687a50232098c0d3e8b9a23caf2337bcd58681a2dc4c1d39bbb0eb7", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:implementation", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:9e226201be0e458efe97", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 1988(a)-(c); 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "Fee eligibility, prevailing-party status, exceptions, and the underlying cause of action remain separate questions. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Section 1988 supplies specified remedial rules, including discretionary attorney-fee authority for enumerated civil-rights enforcement actions.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-42-1988", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "c2928d5a5efb21fb79bc4e690c0216dd49ad1df9a773eeeea8b0c3285ea936a1", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:associational-reputation:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:associational-reputation" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:9e8c04a2a0297318e8e2", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "357 U.S. 449, Syllabus and opinion pp. 460-466", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:associational-reputation", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The holding rests on the specific disclosure demand, record, state interest, and constitutional posture; it does not make all disclosure requirements invalid.", "proposition": "Compelled disclosure of an association's membership may burden protected association when the record demonstrates a substantial restraint on members' freedom of association.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:associational-reputation:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:naacp-alabama-1958", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "524094aa594114d8d0159ec60857d11cfa223ca210ad0b1fd872c020b1fa3f26", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:defamatory-factual-assertions:implementation", "issue:defamatory-factual-assertions" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:9f7c11fac8007a051630", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "497 U.S. 1, Syllabus and opinion pp. 17-21", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:defamatory-factual-assertions", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish liability for any particular statement and must be applied with the full constitutional and state-law elements.", "proposition": "The First Amendment does not create a wholesale defamation exemption for every statement labeled opinion; the inquiry includes whether the challenged statement is sufficiently factual and provably false.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:defamatory-factual-assertions:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:milkovich-lorain-journal-1990", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "fca08dd88421ce1e95c5376b65840fc50f9df55dd21597c66a0bce1844304a73", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status:implementation", "issue:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:a2b7e47ab8693e2cce5a", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "424 U.S. 693, Syllabus and opinion pp. 701-712", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The opinion addresses the federal constitutional claim before the Court; it does not eliminate state-law defamation remedies or resolve every status-plus theory.", "proposition": "The decision limits federal due-process treatment of reputational injury standing alone and distinguishes reputation from a qualifying alteration of a protected legal status or right.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:paul-davis-1976", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "c2928d5a5efb21fb79bc4e690c0216dd49ad1df9a773eeeea8b0c3285ea936a1", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:freedom-to-form-voluntary-associations:implementation", "issue:freedom-to-form-voluntary-associations" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:a4f752bc0ccaf054fce8", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "357 U.S. 449, Syllabus and opinion pp. 460-466", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:freedom-to-form-voluntary-associations", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The holding rests on the specific disclosure demand, record, state interest, and constitutional posture; it does not make all disclosure requirements invalid.", "proposition": "Compelled disclosure of an association's membership may burden protected association when the record demonstrates a substantial restraint on members' freedom of association.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:freedom-to-form-voluntary-associations:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:naacp-alabama-1958", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "ddedb35cb8bc72092182c6bf90badbe6ddc6af2105a3844499333a74976a85da", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:definition-authority", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:a598218f500f816347ae", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "429 U.S. 624, opinion pp. 627-628", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The per curiam decision addresses the pleaded due-process theory and record before it, not every employment or defamation remedy.", "proposition": "A name-clearing hearing claim requires a material factual dispute about the stigmatizing information; the decision limits relief where the employee does not challenge substantial truth.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:codd-velger-1977", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "cee3926a37b9f0d1b1cef12ae38244f46ac468c881c26ca05adcc24bac189d2e", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:damages-remedies:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:damages-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:ac1e7542fe4407a16605", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 1983; 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:damages-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The statute does not itself establish that a particular right was violated, overcome immunities, or determine the available remedy. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Section 1983 creates a civil redress mechanism for qualifying deprivations of federal rights under color of state or territorial law, subject to the provision's text and governing doctrine.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:damages-remedies:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-42-1983", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "aa3bd3f89970e65ecf4efdb317a72f21d8dd9d179300aeb227a1c71abafbe01f", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:damages-remedies:definition-authority", "issue:damages-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:ad7b43437e606a3f298a", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "435 U.S. 247, Syllabus and opinion pp. 254-267", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:damages-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The damages analysis is tied to procedural due process and does not determine remedies for every constitutional or statutory violation.", "proposition": "Compensatory damages for a procedural due-process violation require proof of actual injury, while nominal damages may be available for the deprivation itself under the circumstances described by the Court.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:damages-remedies:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:carey-piphus-1978", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "fca08dd88421ce1e95c5376b65840fc50f9df55dd21597c66a0bce1844304a73", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:ade3e488f0859b53c5ae", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "424 U.S. 693, Syllabus and opinion pp. 701-712", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The opinion addresses the federal constitutional claim before the Court; it does not eliminate state-law defamation remedies or resolve every status-plus theory.", "proposition": "The decision limits federal due-process treatment of reputational injury standing alone and distinguishes reputation from a qualifying alteration of a protected legal status or right.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:paul-davis-1976", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "c2928d5a5efb21fb79bc4e690c0216dd49ad1df9a773eeeea8b0c3285ea936a1", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:associational-reputation:definition-authority", "issue:associational-reputation" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:b25e0c09be8875035d33", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "357 U.S. 449, Syllabus and opinion pp. 460-466", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:associational-reputation", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The holding rests on the specific disclosure demand, record, state interest, and constitutional posture; it does not make all disclosure requirements invalid.", "proposition": "Compelled disclosure of an association's membership may burden protected association when the record demonstrates a substantial restraint on members' freedom of association.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:associational-reputation:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:naacp-alabama-1958", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "cee3926a37b9f0d1b1cef12ae38244f46ac468c881c26ca05adcc24bac189d2e", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:damages-remedies:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:damages-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:ba12bb4ccb57dd09c521", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 1983; 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:damages-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The statute does not itself establish that a particular right was violated, overcome immunities, or determine the available remedy. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Section 1983 creates a civil redress mechanism for qualifying deprivations of federal rights under color of state or territorial law, subject to the provision's text and governing doctrine.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:damages-remedies:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-42-1983", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "524094aa594114d8d0159ec60857d11cfa223ca210ad0b1fd872c020b1fa3f26", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:defamatory-factual-assertions:definition-authority", "issue:defamatory-factual-assertions" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:bde68f142bf4420e6e74", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "497 U.S. 1, Syllabus and opinion pp. 17-21", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:defamatory-factual-assertions", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish liability for any particular statement and must be applied with the full constitutional and state-law elements.", "proposition": "The First Amendment does not create a wholesale defamation exemption for every statement labeled opinion; the inquiry includes whether the challenged statement is sufficiently factual and provably false.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:defamatory-factual-assertions:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:milkovich-lorain-journal-1990", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "524094aa594114d8d0159ec60857d11cfa223ca210ad0b1fd872c020b1fa3f26", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:defamatory-factual-assertions:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:defamatory-factual-assertions" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:bfd75f249ff2c7fb8a10", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "497 U.S. 1, Syllabus and opinion pp. 17-21", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:defamatory-factual-assertions", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish liability for any particular statement and must be applied with the full constitutional and state-law elements.", "proposition": "The First Amendment does not create a wholesale defamation exemption for every statement labeled opinion; the inquiry includes whether the challenged statement is sufficiently factual and provably false.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:defamatory-factual-assertions:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:milkovich-lorain-journal-1990", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "c5965f465f06dc45820ec0b160c49e871f674096dfebbadae6600c12d3a175c7", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:doxxing:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:doxxing" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:c0772504b906f37d3f29", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "18 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(b); 2024 Edition, Title 18 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:doxxing", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The provision covers defined persons and elements; it is not a general federal prohibition on every form of doxxing. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Federal law prohibits specified intentional publication of restricted personal information about covered persons when the statutory threat, intimidation, or violence-facilitation elements are met.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:doxxing:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-18-119", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "fca08dd88421ce1e95c5376b65840fc50f9df55dd21597c66a0bce1844304a73", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:c31cfe07461bbfafc3ab", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "424 U.S. 693, Syllabus and opinion pp. 701-712", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The opinion addresses the federal constitutional claim before the Court; it does not eliminate state-law defamation remedies or resolve every status-plus theory.", "proposition": "The decision limits federal due-process treatment of reputational injury standing alone and distinguishes reputation from a qualifying alteration of a protected legal status or right.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:paul-davis-1976", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "c2928d5a5efb21fb79bc4e690c0216dd49ad1df9a773eeeea8b0c3285ea936a1", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:freedom-to-form-voluntary-associations:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:freedom-to-form-voluntary-associations" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:cb09fa7e491d4b2c2e61", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "357 U.S. 449, Syllabus and opinion pp. 460-466", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:freedom-to-form-voluntary-associations", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The holding rests on the specific disclosure demand, record, state interest, and constitutional posture; it does not make all disclosure requirements invalid.", "proposition": "Compelled disclosure of an association's membership may burden protected association when the record demonstrates a substantial restraint on members' freedom of association.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:freedom-to-form-voluntary-associations:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:naacp-alabama-1958", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "v7.24 exact-source packet re-evaluated under v7.25 field-specific rules", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_COUNTRY_FIELD_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "canada" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL_MULTI_SOURCE", "claimOrFieldId": "authoritative_scope", "contentFingerprint": "60e70be3fc6d873d885347b9de8fb8cdfbd64fd557efc6a07f92aea073a95782", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_EXACT_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": "canada", "downstreamRelationships": [ "country-context-gap:canada-001:authoritative_scope", "issue:indigenous-sovereignty-settler-colonial-structures" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:country:canada-authoritative-scope", "evidenceType": "COUNTRY_CONTEXT_EXACT_AUTHORITY_PACKET", "exactLocator": "National Council for Reconciliation Act, S.C. 2024, c. 8 — Full Act; purpose, functions, reporting, and governance provisions; limitation: Statutory establishment does not itself demonstrate operational effectiveness or complete fulfillment of Calls 53–56.; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action — Calls 1–94; especially Calls 53–56 on the National Council and progress reporting; limitation: The Calls are recommendations and do not by themselves prove implementation or current outcomes.; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action — Full online list; Calls 17–24, 38–40, and 53–56; limitation: Online transcription should be checked against the PDF for formal citation.", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:indigenous-sovereignty-settler-colonial-structures", "jurisdiction": "canada", "limitations": "The packet supports the bounded field proposition, not general implementation effectiveness or every jurisdictional outcome.", "proposition": "Canada's National Council for Reconciliation Act establishes the Council's statutory purpose, functions, reporting relationships, and governance framework; this supplies an authoritative federal scope but does not prove implementation effectiveness.", "reasonCodes": [ "FIELD_PROPOSITION_RECORDED", "MULTIPLE_EXACT_AUTHORITIES", "IMPLEMENTATION_OUTCOME_NOT_VERIFIED" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": null, "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "CAN_NCR_ACT", "sourceIds": [ "CAN_NCR_ACT", "CAN_TRC_CALLS", "CAN_TRC_WEB" ], "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "FIELD_SPECIFIC_MULTI_SOURCE_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Bounded to the dates and scopes recorded in the linked exact authorities.", "validationState": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "v7.24 exact-source packet re-evaluated under v7.25 field-specific rules", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_COUNTRY_FIELD_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "canada" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL_MULTI_SOURCE", "claimOrFieldId": "confirmatory_evidence", "contentFingerprint": "641171f7b929f9b092fe7538f6cef5b92e8e5f9518522517c6ffc8e5a7d1f0d9", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_EXACT_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": "canada", "downstreamRelationships": [ "country-context-gap:canada-001:confirmatory_evidence", "issue:indigenous-sovereignty-settler-colonial-structures" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:country:canada-confirmatory", "evidenceType": "COUNTRY_CONTEXT_EXACT_AUTHORITY_PACKET", "exactLocator": "National Council for Reconciliation Act, S.C. 2024, c. 8 — Full Act; purpose, functions, reporting, and governance provisions; limitation: Statutory establishment does not itself demonstrate operational effectiveness or complete fulfillment of Calls 53–56.; Reference re An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2024 SCC 5 — 2024 SCC 5; full reasons and disposition; limitation: Specific constitutional reference; relevance to other Calls to Action must be stated rather than assumed.; United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, S.C. 2021, c. 14 — Sections 4–7 and Schedule; section 5 consistency obligation; limitation: Federal statute; implementation depends on action plans, reporting, interpretation, and jurisdiction-specific measures.", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:indigenous-sovereignty-settler-colonial-structures", "jurisdiction": "canada", "limitations": "The packet supports the bounded field proposition, not general implementation effectiveness or every jurisdictional outcome.", "proposition": "The National Council for Reconciliation Act, the UN Declaration Act, and 2024 SCC 5 provide distinct statutory and judicial evidence relevant to the recorded reconciliation implementation field, with their separate scopes preserved.", "reasonCodes": [ "FIELD_PROPOSITION_RECORDED", "MULTIPLE_EXACT_AUTHORITIES", "IMPLEMENTATION_OUTCOME_NOT_VERIFIED" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": null, "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "CAN_NCR_ACT", "sourceIds": [ "CAN_NCR_ACT", "CAN_SCC_2024_5", "CAN_UNDRIP_ACT" ], "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "FIELD_SPECIFIC_MULTI_SOURCE_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Bounded to the dates and scopes recorded in the linked exact authorities.", "validationState": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "v7.24 exact-source packet re-evaluated under v7.25 field-specific rules", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_COUNTRY_FIELD_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "european-union" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL_MULTI_SOURCE", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings", "contentFingerprint": "781e0d3491dcc367cef8599cbae84b9c09a55b8b0accbdfa35b93a35255061b2", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_EXACT_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": "european-union", "downstreamRelationships": [ "country-context-gap:european-union-001:rulings", "issue:global-democracy-human-rights-and-anti-authoritarianism" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:country:eu-rulings", "evidenceType": "COUNTRY_CONTEXT_EXACT_AUTHORITY_PACKET", "exactLocator": "Hungary v European Parliament and Council, Case C-156/21 — Judgment of the Court (Full Court), Case C-156/21; limitation: Addresses the regulation's validity; later application and case-specific proportionality require separate review.; Poland v European Parliament and Council, Case C-157/21 — Judgment of the Court (Full Court), Case C-157/21; limitation: Addresses validity and legal basis; does not make every alleged rule-of-law deficiency actionable.; Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget — Full regulation; conditions, measures, procedure, and protection of final recipients; limitation: Application is tied to effects or serious risks to sound financial management or protection of the Union budget.", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:global-democracy-human-rights-and-anti-authoritarianism", "jurisdiction": "european-union", "limitations": "The packet supports the bounded field proposition, not general implementation effectiveness or every jurisdictional outcome.", "proposition": "The recorded Court of Justice conditionality judgments and EU conditionality regulation provide exact legal authorities for the rule-of-law rulings field, without establishing compliance outcomes for every member state.", "reasonCodes": [ "FIELD_PROPOSITION_RECORDED", "MULTIPLE_EXACT_AUTHORITIES", "IMPLEMENTATION_OUTCOME_NOT_VERIFIED" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": null, "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "EU_C156_21", "sourceIds": [ "EU_C156_21", "EU_C157_21", "EU_CONDITIONALITY" ], "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "FIELD_SPECIFIC_MULTI_SOURCE_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Bounded to the dates and scopes recorded in the linked exact authorities.", "validationState": "EVIDENCE_SUPPORTED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "c2928d5a5efb21fb79bc4e690c0216dd49ad1df9a773eeeea8b0c3285ea936a1", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:freedom-to-form-voluntary-associations:definition-authority", "issue:freedom-to-form-voluntary-associations" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:d1b12ff5b4ad04ffd055", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "357 U.S. 449, Syllabus and opinion pp. 460-466", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:freedom-to-form-voluntary-associations", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The holding rests on the specific disclosure demand, record, state interest, and constitutional posture; it does not make all disclosure requirements invalid.", "proposition": "Compelled disclosure of an association's membership may burden protected association when the record demonstrates a substantial restraint on members' freedom of association.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:freedom-to-form-voluntary-associations:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:naacp-alabama-1958", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "c2928d5a5efb21fb79bc4e690c0216dd49ad1df9a773eeeea8b0c3285ea936a1", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:associational-privacy:implementation", "issue:associational-privacy" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:d333b0aa8c26d22cd075", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "357 U.S. 449, Syllabus and opinion pp. 460-466", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:associational-privacy", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The holding rests on the specific disclosure demand, record, state interest, and constitutional posture; it does not make all disclosure requirements invalid.", "proposition": "Compelled disclosure of an association's membership may burden protected association when the record demonstrates a substantial restraint on members' freedom of association.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:associational-privacy:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:naacp-alabama-1958", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "cee3926a37b9f0d1b1cef12ae38244f46ac468c881c26ca05adcc24bac189d2e", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:implementation", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:d7eeb9ed0c73afc1e66f", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 1983; 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The statute does not itself establish that a particular right was violated, overcome immunities, or determine the available remedy. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Section 1983 creates a civil redress mechanism for qualifying deprivations of federal rights under color of state or territorial law, subject to the provision's text and governing doctrine.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-42-1983", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "aa3bd3f89970e65ecf4efdb317a72f21d8dd9d179300aeb227a1c71abafbe01f", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:d9e264b12ae5cd079617", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "435 U.S. 247, Syllabus and opinion pp. 254-267", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The damages analysis is tied to procedural due process and does not determine remedies for every constitutional or statutory violation.", "proposition": "Compensatory damages for a procedural due-process violation require proof of actual injury, while nominal damages may be available for the deprivation itself under the circumstances described by the Court.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:carey-piphus-1978", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "fca08dd88421ce1e95c5376b65840fc50f9df55dd21597c66a0bce1844304a73", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:employment-reputation:definition-authority", "issue:employment-reputation" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:da2770524da3286f4e13", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "424 U.S. 693, Syllabus and opinion pp. 701-712", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:employment-reputation", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The opinion addresses the federal constitutional claim before the Court; it does not eliminate state-law defamation remedies or resolve every status-plus theory.", "proposition": "The decision limits federal due-process treatment of reputational injury standing alone and distinguishes reputation from a qualifying alteration of a protected legal status or right.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:employment-reputation:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:paul-davis-1976", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "cee3926a37b9f0d1b1cef12ae38244f46ac468c881c26ca05adcc24bac189d2e", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:damages-remedies:implementation", "issue:damages-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:dab5d79b8293d2facbb9", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 1983; 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:damages-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The statute does not itself establish that a particular right was violated, overcome immunities, or determine the available remedy. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Section 1983 creates a civil redress mechanism for qualifying deprivations of federal rights under color of state or territorial law, subject to the provision's text and governing doctrine.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:damages-remedies:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-42-1983", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "c2928d5a5efb21fb79bc4e690c0216dd49ad1df9a773eeeea8b0c3285ea936a1", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:associational-privacy:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:associational-privacy" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:dcb686edebf57476db9b", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "357 U.S. 449, Syllabus and opinion pp. 460-466", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:associational-privacy", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The holding rests on the specific disclosure demand, record, state interest, and constitutional posture; it does not make all disclosure requirements invalid.", "proposition": "Compelled disclosure of an association's membership may burden protected association when the record demonstrates a substantial restraint on members' freedom of association.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:associational-privacy:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:naacp-alabama-1958", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "177d86275687a50232098c0d3e8b9a23caf2337bcd58681a2dc4c1d39bbb0eb7", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:damages-remedies:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:damages-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:dcc967c226afc015008a", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 1988(a)-(c); 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:damages-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "Fee eligibility, prevailing-party status, exceptions, and the underlying cause of action remain separate questions. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Section 1988 supplies specified remedial rules, including discretionary attorney-fee authority for enumerated civil-rights enforcement actions.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:damages-remedies:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-42-1988", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "c5965f465f06dc45820ec0b160c49e871f674096dfebbadae6600c12d3a175c7", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:doxxing:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:doxxing" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:df6125a0fbca7da3d80e", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "18 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(b); 2024 Edition, Title 18 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:doxxing", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The provision covers defined persons and elements; it is not a general federal prohibition on every form of doxxing. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Federal law prohibits specified intentional publication of restricted personal information about covered persons when the statutory threat, intimidation, or violence-facilitation elements are met.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:doxxing:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-18-119", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "fca08dd88421ce1e95c5376b65840fc50f9df55dd21597c66a0bce1844304a73", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:employment-reputation:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:employment-reputation" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:e6e1b9b019947bd6df56", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "424 U.S. 693, Syllabus and opinion pp. 701-712", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:employment-reputation", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The opinion addresses the federal constitutional claim before the Court; it does not eliminate state-law defamation remedies or resolve every status-plus theory.", "proposition": "The decision limits federal due-process treatment of reputational injury standing alone and distinguishes reputation from a qualifying alteration of a protected legal status or right.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:employment-reputation:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:paul-davis-1976", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "524094aa594114d8d0159ec60857d11cfa223ca210ad0b1fd872c020b1fa3f26", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:academic-reputation:implementation", "issue:academic-reputation" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:e808595919c7f0c32128", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "497 U.S. 1, Syllabus and opinion pp. 17-21", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:academic-reputation", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The decision does not establish liability for any particular statement and must be applied with the full constitutional and state-law elements.", "proposition": "The First Amendment does not create a wholesale defamation exemption for every statement labeled opinion; the inquiry includes whether the challenged statement is sufficiently factual and provably false.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:academic-reputation:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:milkovich-lorain-journal-1990", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "aa3bd3f89970e65ecf4efdb317a72f21d8dd9d179300aeb227a1c71abafbe01f", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:definition-authority", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:e83d82778cabddaa1d95", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "435 U.S. 247, Syllabus and opinion pp. 254-267", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The damages analysis is tied to procedural due process and does not determine remedies for every constitutional or statutory violation.", "proposition": "Compensatory damages for a procedural due-process violation require proof of actual injury, while nominal damages may be available for the deprivation itself under the circumstances described by the Court.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:carey-piphus-1978", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "ddedb35cb8bc72092182c6bf90badbe6ddc6af2105a3844499333a74976a85da", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:e96027d689e68dad7afb", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "429 U.S. 624, opinion pp. 627-628", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The per curiam decision addresses the pleaded due-process theory and record before it, not every employment or defamation remedy.", "proposition": "A name-clearing hearing claim requires a material factual dispute about the stigmatizing information; the decision limits relief where the employee does not challenge substantial truth.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:codd-velger-1977", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "fca08dd88421ce1e95c5376b65840fc50f9df55dd21597c66a0bce1844304a73", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:definition-authority", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:eb9a2ee78be15527b168", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "424 U.S. 693, Syllabus and opinion pp. 701-712", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The opinion addresses the federal constitutional claim before the Court; it does not eliminate state-law defamation remedies or resolve every status-plus theory.", "proposition": "The decision limits federal due-process treatment of reputational injury standing alone and distinguishes reputation from a qualifying alteration of a protected legal status or right.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:paul-davis-1976", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "ddedb35cb8bc72092182c6bf90badbe6ddc6af2105a3844499333a74976a85da", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:employment-reputation:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:employment-reputation" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:ec39ec8386e8dbcc4221", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "429 U.S. 624, opinion pp. 627-628", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:employment-reputation", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The per curiam decision addresses the pleaded due-process theory and record before it, not every employment or defamation remedy.", "proposition": "A name-clearing hearing claim requires a material factual dispute about the stigmatizing information; the decision limits relief where the employee does not challenge substantial truth.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:employment-reputation:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:codd-velger-1977", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "ddedb35cb8bc72092182c6bf90badbe6ddc6af2105a3844499333a74976a85da", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status:definition-authority", "issue:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:ec858941282aaca982f1", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "429 U.S. 624, opinion pp. 627-628", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The per curiam decision addresses the pleaded due-process theory and record before it, not every employment or defamation remedy.", "proposition": "A name-clearing hearing claim requires a material factual dispute about the stigmatizing information; the decision limits relief where the employee does not challenge substantial truth.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:reputational-injury-combined-with-altered-legal-status:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:codd-velger-1977", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "rulings-confirmatory", "contentFingerprint": "ddedb35cb8bc72092182c6bf90badbe6ddc6af2105a3844499333a74976a85da", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:rulings-confirmatory", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:effc342ba335956b3fb4", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "429 U.S. 624, opinion pp. 627-628", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The per curiam decision addresses the pleaded due-process theory and record before it, not every employment or defamation remedy.", "proposition": "A name-clearing hearing claim requires a material factual dispute about the stigmatizing information; the decision limits relief where the employee does not challenge substantial truth.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:rulings-confirmatory", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:codd-velger-1977", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "implementation", "contentFingerprint": "aa3bd3f89970e65ecf4efdb317a72f21d8dd9d179300aeb227a1c71abafbe01f", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:damages-remedies:implementation", "issue:damages-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:f275f617744d92579d5d", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "435 U.S. 247, Syllabus and opinion pp. 254-267", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:damages-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The damages analysis is tied to procedural due process and does not determine remedies for every constitutional or statutory violation.", "proposition": "Compensatory damages for a procedural due-process violation require proof of actual injury, while nominal damages may be available for the deprivation itself under the circumstances described by the Court.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:damages-remedies:implementation", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:carey-piphus-1978", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "cee3926a37b9f0d1b1cef12ae38244f46ac468c881c26ca05adcc24bac189d2e", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:constitutional-remedies:definition-authority", "issue:constitutional-remedies" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:f33313a262a01ec92208", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 1983; 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:constitutional-remedies", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The statute does not itself establish that a particular right was violated, overcome immunities, or determine the available remedy. Currentness after the 2024 Code edition is not independently established here.", "proposition": "Section 1983 creates a civil redress mechanism for qualifying deprivations of federal rights under color of state or territorial law, subject to the provision's text and governing doctrine.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:constitutional-remedies:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v725:usc-42-1983", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendments require a separate currentness check.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "The evidence object's bounded holding or statutory proposition only; issue and request verification remain separate.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v725/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_RECORDED_PROPOSITION_WITH_LIMITATIONS", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "sources-policy-rulings", "contentFingerprint": "fca08dd88421ce1e95c5376b65840fc50f9df55dd21597c66a0bce1844304a73", "contradictionStatus": "LIMITING_AUTHORITY", "corroborationStatus": "MULTIPLE_PRIMARY_AUTHORITIES", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:employment-reputation:sources-policy-rulings", "issue:employment-reputation" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v725:fab0dbddc6140dbddfed", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_JUDICIAL_OPINION", "exactLocator": "424 U.S. 693, Syllabus and opinion pp. 701-712", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:employment-reputation", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The opinion addresses the federal constitutional claim before the Court; it does not eliminate state-law defamation remedies or resolve every status-plus theory.", "proposition": "The decision limits federal due-process treatment of reputational injury standing alone and distinguishes reputation from a qualifying alteration of a protected legal status or right.", "reasonCodes": [ "EXACT_PRIMARY_LOCATOR", "CURRENTNESS_OR_COMPLETE_REQUEST_CONTRACT_REMAINS" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:employment-reputation:sources-policy-rulings", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "case:paul-davis-1976", "supportDirection": "LIMITS", "supportStrength": "REQUEST_FIELD_RELEVANT_EXACT_PRIMARY_EVIDENCE", "temporalApplicability": "Decision date and subsequent applicability require issue-specific currentness analysis.", "validationState": "LOCATOR_AND_PROPOSITION_VALIDATED_NOT_VERIFIED", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "FAIL", "verificationState": "NOT_VERIFIED", "verified": false }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v726/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_BOUNDED_DEFINITION_OR_AUTHORITY_PROPOSITION", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "61c98d4f68aed8d27be78a91082297a15b6bab363ed68bea54c8384993a32c97", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_STATUTORY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:civil-rights-enforcement:definition-authority", "issue:civil-rights-enforcement" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v726:0e4decff3734a6bd9a5b", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "18 U.S.C. § 242; 2024 Edition, Title 18 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:civil-rights-enforcement", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The provision is criminal, requires willfulness and federal prosecutorial process, and does not create a private civil cause of action.", "proposition": "Section 242 criminalizes willful qualifying deprivations of protected rights under color of law and specifies graduated penalties.", "reasonCodes": [ "OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT", "EXACT_SECTION_LOCATOR", "DIRECT_BOUNDED_PROPOSITION", "LIMITATIONS_PRESERVED" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:civil-rights-enforcement:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v726:usc-18-242", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_STATUTORY_PROPOSITION", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendment and case-law effects remain separate.", "validationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "Bounded statutory proposition only; no issue-level fact or violation is verified.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v726/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_BOUNDED_DEFINITION_OR_AUTHORITY_PROPOSITION", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "a3283400687a24a5cc5c875ea4e9e678a5353763f9a6e4a550e258adeb1ef585", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_STATUTORY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:racial-housing-restrictions:definition-authority", "issue:racial-housing-restrictions" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v726:15b0b80c0915bcf883d5", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)-(f); 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:racial-housing-restrictions", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The statute does not prove a violation in a particular transaction or resolve defenses, exemptions, causation, standing, or remedies.", "proposition": "Section 3604 defines specified discriminatory housing-sale, rental, advertising, availability, and disability-access practices as unlawful, subject to statutory coverage and exemptions.", "reasonCodes": [ "OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT", "EXACT_SECTION_LOCATOR", "DIRECT_BOUNDED_PROPOSITION", "LIMITATIONS_PRESERVED" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:racial-housing-restrictions:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v726:usc-42-3604", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_STATUTORY_PROPOSITION", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendment and case-law effects remain separate.", "validationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "Bounded statutory proposition only; no issue-level fact or violation is verified.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v726/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_BOUNDED_DEFINITION_OR_AUTHORITY_PROPOSITION", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "4b1d1b23c1f8198389084cf95853b515eb1b676c19b9d7a09f6110725be7209c", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_STATUTORY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:failure-to-correct-government-records:definition-authority", "issue:failure-to-correct-government-records" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v726:22187da147f69bef29cc", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(1)-(4), (e)(5), (g); 2024 Edition, Title 5 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:failure-to-correct-government-records", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "Coverage, exemptions, exhaustion, remedy elements, and whether a particular record is inaccurate remain separate questions.", "proposition": "Section 552a provides specified access, amendment, accuracy, agency-procedure, and civil-remedy rules for qualifying federal systems of records.", "reasonCodes": [ "OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT", "EXACT_SECTION_LOCATOR", "DIRECT_BOUNDED_PROPOSITION", "LIMITATIONS_PRESERVED" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:failure-to-correct-government-records:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v726:usc-5-552a", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_STATUTORY_PROPOSITION", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendment and case-law effects remain separate.", "validationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "Bounded statutory proposition only; no issue-level fact or violation is verified.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v726/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_BOUNDED_DEFINITION_OR_AUTHORITY_PROPOSITION", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "4b1d1b23c1f8198389084cf95853b515eb1b676c19b9d7a09f6110725be7209c", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_STATUTORY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:failure-to-update-records-following-contradictory-evidence:definition-authority", "issue:failure-to-update-records-following-contradictory-evidence" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v726:22d24e05925024e4f004", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(1)-(4), (e)(5), (g); 2024 Edition, Title 5 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:failure-to-update-records-following-contradictory-evidence", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "Coverage, exemptions, exhaustion, remedy elements, and whether a particular record is inaccurate remain separate questions.", "proposition": "Section 552a provides specified access, amendment, accuracy, agency-procedure, and civil-remedy rules for qualifying federal systems of records.", "reasonCodes": [ "OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT", "EXACT_SECTION_LOCATOR", "DIRECT_BOUNDED_PROPOSITION", "LIMITATIONS_PRESERVED" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:failure-to-update-records-following-contradictory-evidence:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v726:usc-5-552a", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_STATUTORY_PROPOSITION", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendment and case-law effects remain separate.", "validationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "Bounded statutory proposition only; no issue-level fact or violation is verified.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v726/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_BOUNDED_DEFINITION_OR_AUTHORITY_PROPOSITION", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "55752f2c1c78dcfd5cd024697aa97d937a4486f7fb4f881441ab13b112011722", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_STATUTORY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:access-to-public-information:definition-authority", "issue:access-to-public-information" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v726:25230375f899da5757fa", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1)-(3), (b); 2024 Edition, Title 5 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:access-to-public-information", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The provision does not establish entitlement to every requested record and preserves enumerated exemptions and procedural requirements.", "proposition": "Section 552 establishes federal agency publication and record-request duties subject to the statute's procedures and exemptions.", "reasonCodes": [ "OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT", "EXACT_SECTION_LOCATOR", "DIRECT_BOUNDED_PROPOSITION", "LIMITATIONS_PRESERVED" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:access-to-public-information:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v726:usc-5-552", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_STATUTORY_PROPOSITION", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendment and case-law effects remain separate.", "validationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "Bounded statutory proposition only; no issue-level fact or violation is verified.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v726/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_BOUNDED_DEFINITION_OR_AUTHORITY_PROPOSITION", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "eca92eec2ada689fb825e5897fb3582f799d45408446d347a2fd8add8237b5f5", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_STATUTORY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:voting-rights-protection:definition-authority", "issue:voting-rights-protection" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v726:300763c0916f7e642c2c", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)-(c); 2024 Edition, Title 52 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:voting-rights-protection", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The provision does not determine a violation in a particular election and does not displace other statutory or constitutional voting-rights doctrines.", "proposition": "Section 10101 establishes specified federal voting qualification, nondiscrimination, anti-intimidation, and enforcement rules.", "reasonCodes": [ "OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT", "EXACT_SECTION_LOCATOR", "DIRECT_BOUNDED_PROPOSITION", "LIMITATIONS_PRESERVED" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:voting-rights-protection:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v726:usc-52-10101", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_STATUTORY_PROPOSITION", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendment and case-law effects remain separate.", "validationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "Bounded statutory proposition only; no issue-level fact or violation is verified.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v726/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_BOUNDED_DEFINITION_OR_AUTHORITY_PROPOSITION", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "a3283400687a24a5cc5c875ea4e9e678a5353763f9a6e4a550e258adeb1ef585", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_STATUTORY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:fair-housing-enforcement:definition-authority", "issue:fair-housing-enforcement" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v726:406d76001d7bfa28f911", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)-(f); 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:fair-housing-enforcement", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The statute does not prove a violation in a particular transaction or resolve defenses, exemptions, causation, standing, or remedies.", "proposition": "Section 3604 defines specified discriminatory housing-sale, rental, advertising, availability, and disability-access practices as unlawful, subject to statutory coverage and exemptions.", "reasonCodes": [ "OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT", "EXACT_SECTION_LOCATOR", "DIRECT_BOUNDED_PROPOSITION", "LIMITATIONS_PRESERVED" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:fair-housing-enforcement:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v726:usc-42-3604", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_STATUTORY_PROPOSITION", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendment and case-law effects remain separate.", "validationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "Bounded statutory proposition only; no issue-level fact or violation is verified.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v726/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_BOUNDED_DEFINITION_OR_AUTHORITY_PROPOSITION", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "eca92eec2ada689fb825e5897fb3582f799d45408446d347a2fd8add8237b5f5", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_STATUTORY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:racial-voting-restrictions:definition-authority", "issue:racial-voting-restrictions" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v726:60c2770bcceeaeeb3b3d", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)-(c); 2024 Edition, Title 52 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:racial-voting-restrictions", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The provision does not determine a violation in a particular election and does not displace other statutory or constitutional voting-rights doctrines.", "proposition": "Section 10101 establishes specified federal voting qualification, nondiscrimination, anti-intimidation, and enforcement rules.", "reasonCodes": [ "OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT", "EXACT_SECTION_LOCATOR", "DIRECT_BOUNDED_PROPOSITION", "LIMITATIONS_PRESERVED" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:racial-voting-restrictions:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v726:usc-52-10101", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_STATUTORY_PROPOSITION", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendment and case-law effects remain separate.", "validationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "Bounded statutory proposition only; no issue-level fact or violation is verified.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v726/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_BOUNDED_DEFINITION_OR_AUTHORITY_PROPOSITION", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "fbaa94e2263ac76b54e36f3888bb786de4a324b3dbea95320c434dedfb51d351", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_STATUTORY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:pregnancy-discrimination:definition-authority", "issue:pregnancy-discrimination" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v726:626e70a441e30925ca93", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k); 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:pregnancy-discrimination", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The definition does not by itself establish employer coverage, an adverse action, a comparator, causation, or liability in a particular case.", "proposition": "Section 2000e(k) includes pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions within Title VII's sex terminology and states the provision's employment-treatment rule.", "reasonCodes": [ "OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT", "EXACT_SECTION_LOCATOR", "DIRECT_BOUNDED_PROPOSITION", "LIMITATIONS_PRESERVED" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:pregnancy-discrimination:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v726:usc-42-2000e", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_STATUTORY_PROPOSITION", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendment and case-law effects remain separate.", "validationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "Bounded statutory proposition only; no issue-level fact or violation is verified.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v726/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_BOUNDED_DEFINITION_OR_AUTHORITY_PROPOSITION", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "4b1d1b23c1f8198389084cf95853b515eb1b676c19b9d7a09f6110725be7209c", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_STATUTORY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:correction-of-government-records:definition-authority", "issue:correction-of-government-records" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v726:6ce34312e827135261c6", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(1)-(4), (e)(5), (g); 2024 Edition, Title 5 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:correction-of-government-records", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "Coverage, exemptions, exhaustion, remedy elements, and whether a particular record is inaccurate remain separate questions.", "proposition": "Section 552a provides specified access, amendment, accuracy, agency-procedure, and civil-remedy rules for qualifying federal systems of records.", "reasonCodes": [ "OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT", "EXACT_SECTION_LOCATOR", "DIRECT_BOUNDED_PROPOSITION", "LIMITATIONS_PRESERVED" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:correction-of-government-records:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v726:usc-5-552a", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_STATUTORY_PROPOSITION", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendment and case-law effects remain separate.", "validationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "Bounded statutory proposition only; no issue-level fact or violation is verified.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v726/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_BOUNDED_DEFINITION_OR_AUTHORITY_PROPOSITION", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "eb02575a2d3f2cb45f9783f9abdba72ff0a1d7d88554e86ef55a4810b956e0c2", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_STATUTORY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:educational-opportunity-gaps:definition-authority", "issue:educational-opportunity-gaps" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v726:6d79214cd2baa2e39fdf", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 2000d; 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:educational-opportunity-gaps", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The statute does not itself prove discriminatory conduct in a particular education system or establish every causal explanation for opportunity gaps.", "proposition": "Section 2000d prohibits exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination on race, color, or national-origin grounds under covered federally assisted programs or activities.", "reasonCodes": [ "OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT", "EXACT_SECTION_LOCATOR", "DIRECT_BOUNDED_PROPOSITION", "LIMITATIONS_PRESERVED" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:educational-opportunity-gaps:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v726:usc-42-2000d", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_STATUTORY_PROPOSITION", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendment and case-law effects remain separate.", "validationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "Bounded statutory proposition only; no issue-level fact or violation is verified.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v726/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_BOUNDED_DEFINITION_OR_AUTHORITY_PROPOSITION", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "568666725a7207db380fa8aa66f1b606a503cd8205ae0fa42924664ba31616ee", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_STATUTORY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:pay-inequality-for-women-of-color:definition-authority", "issue:pay-inequality-for-women-of-color" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v726:86b107a08640c4e7803b", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1)-(4); 2024 Edition, Title 29 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:pay-inequality-for-women-of-color", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The provision does not by itself establish a wage disparity, coverage, equal-work comparator, or the inapplicability of a statutory exception.", "proposition": "Section 206(d) prohibits covered employers from sex-based wage-rate discrimination for equal work under the provision's skill, effort, responsibility, working-condition, and statutory-exception terms.", "reasonCodes": [ "OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT", "EXACT_SECTION_LOCATOR", "DIRECT_BOUNDED_PROPOSITION", "LIMITATIONS_PRESERVED" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:pay-inequality-for-women-of-color:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v726:usc-29-206", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_STATUTORY_PROPOSITION", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendment and case-law effects remain separate.", "validationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "Bounded statutory proposition only; no issue-level fact or violation is verified.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v726/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_BOUNDED_DEFINITION_OR_AUTHORITY_PROPOSITION", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "568666725a7207db380fa8aa66f1b606a503cd8205ae0fa42924664ba31616ee", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_STATUTORY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:gender-pay-gap:definition-authority", "issue:gender-pay-gap" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v726:9cefd1a000b9475a56bb", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1)-(4); 2024 Edition, Title 29 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:gender-pay-gap", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The provision does not by itself establish a wage disparity, coverage, equal-work comparator, or the inapplicability of a statutory exception.", "proposition": "Section 206(d) prohibits covered employers from sex-based wage-rate discrimination for equal work under the provision's skill, effort, responsibility, working-condition, and statutory-exception terms.", "reasonCodes": [ "OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT", "EXACT_SECTION_LOCATOR", "DIRECT_BOUNDED_PROPOSITION", "LIMITATIONS_PRESERVED" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:gender-pay-gap:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v726:usc-29-206", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_STATUTORY_PROPOSITION", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendment and case-law effects remain separate.", "validationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "Bounded statutory proposition only; no issue-level fact or violation is verified.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v726/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_BOUNDED_DEFINITION_OR_AUTHORITY_PROPOSITION", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "eb02575a2d3f2cb45f9783f9abdba72ff0a1d7d88554e86ef55a4810b956e0c2", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_STATUTORY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:racially-discriminatory-education-rules:definition-authority", "issue:racially-discriminatory-education-rules" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v726:c5f924091cfcf2c2ba16", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 2000d; 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:racially-discriminatory-education-rules", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The statute does not itself prove discriminatory conduct in a particular education system or establish every causal explanation for opportunity gaps.", "proposition": "Section 2000d prohibits exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination on race, color, or national-origin grounds under covered federally assisted programs or activities.", "reasonCodes": [ "OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT", "EXACT_SECTION_LOCATOR", "DIRECT_BOUNDED_PROPOSITION", "LIMITATIONS_PRESERVED" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:racially-discriminatory-education-rules:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v726:usc-42-2000d", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_STATUTORY_PROPOSITION", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendment and case-law effects remain separate.", "validationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "Bounded statutory proposition only; no issue-level fact or violation is verified.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v726/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_BOUNDED_DEFINITION_OR_AUTHORITY_PROPOSITION", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "ea4df053e10a03b259d5420ae5625ca87e62aec18056ab89e60adf8530eb2357", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_STATUTORY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:structural-gender-inequality:definition-authority", "issue:structural-gender-inequality" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v726:d989398d620b6ab203ee", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)-(c); 2024 Edition, Title 20 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:structural-gender-inequality", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The provision addresses a bounded education domain and does not establish structural gender inequality in every institution or setting.", "proposition": "Section 1681 prohibits exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination on the basis of sex under covered federally assisted education programs, subject to enumerated exceptions.", "reasonCodes": [ "OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT", "EXACT_SECTION_LOCATOR", "DIRECT_BOUNDED_PROPOSITION", "LIMITATIONS_PRESERVED" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:structural-gender-inequality:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v726:usc-20-1681", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_STATUTORY_PROPOSITION", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendment and case-law effects remain separate.", "validationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "Bounded statutory proposition only; no issue-level fact or violation is verified.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" }, { "acquisitionProvenance": "data/research-v726/acquisition-snapshot.v1.json", "applicability": "DIRECT_TO_BOUNDED_DEFINITION_OR_AUTHORITY_PROPOSITION", "applicableGeography": [ "united-states" ], "authorityLevel": "PRIMARY_OFFICIAL", "claimOrFieldId": "definition-authority", "contentFingerprint": "a3283400687a24a5cc5c875ea4e9e678a5353763f9a6e4a550e258adeb1ef585", "contradictionStatus": "NO_DIRECT_CONTRADICTION_RECORDED", "corroborationStatus": "SINGLE_PRIMARY_STATUTORY_AUTHORITY", "countryId": null, "downstreamRelationships": [ "intake:interracial-association-housing-exclusion:definition-authority", "issue:interracial-association-housing-exclusion" ], "evidenceId": "evidence:v726:f5620516c76d83035f5b", "evidenceType": "OFFICIAL_STATUTE_TEXT", "exactLocator": "42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)-(f); 2024 Edition, Title 42 section PDF", "generatedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "issueId": "issue:interracial-association-housing-exclusion", "jurisdiction": "United States federal", "limitations": "The statute does not prove a violation in a particular transaction or resolve defenses, exemptions, causation, standing, or remedies.", "proposition": "Section 3604 defines specified discriminatory housing-sale, rental, advertising, availability, and disability-access practices as unlawful, subject to statutory coverage and exemptions.", "reasonCodes": [ "OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT", "EXACT_SECTION_LOCATOR", "DIRECT_BOUNDED_PROPOSITION", "LIMITATIONS_PRESERVED" ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "requestId": "intake:interracial-association-housing-exclusion:definition-authority", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-object.v3", "sourceId": "src:v726:usc-42-3604", "supportDirection": "SUPPORTS_OR_DEFINES", "supportStrength": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_STATUTORY_PROPOSITION", "temporalApplicability": "2024 United States Code edition; later amendment and case-law effects remain separate.", "validationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verificationPolicy": "verification-policy:v726:v1", "verificationResult": "PASS", "verificationScope": "Bounded statutory proposition only; no issue-level fact or violation is verified.", "verificationState": "VERIFIED_BOUNDED_EVIDENCE_PROPOSITION", "verified": true, "verifiedAt": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z" } ], "releaseVersion": "7.26", "schemaVersion": "wsmusings.evidence-objects.v3", "unresolvedCount": 69, "verifiedCount": 109 }