Dred Scott v. Sandford
60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)
Constitutional Topic Areas:
Article IV §3 Clause 2 ‘Property Clause’, 5th Amendment ‘Due Process Clause’, Original Jurisdiction, Appellate Jurisdiction, Federalism
Case Facts:
Dred Scott was a slave who resided in Missouri, which permitted the ownership of slaves under Missouri state law. In 1833 to 1843, he and his owner moved to and resided in Illinois and the Wisconsin territory which both outlawed the ownership of slaves under state law. When his owner moved him back to Missouri, Scott sued in the State Court of Missouri arguing since he had resided in a state where slavery was abolished, he was entitled to be freed. The Missouri Court ruled against Scott, stating because they were currently in Missouri, the Missouri state law allowed his enslavement. Scott sued again, this time in federal court which again ruled against him, arguing they only had to apply the Missouri law as Scott was currently located in Missouri. Scott then applied to the Supreme Court.
Questions:
1. Can a black person who personally was imported into the United States to be sold as a slave, or the descendent of a person who was imported as a slave, be entitled to the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution?
Holding:
1. No
Legal Reasoning: Chief Justice R.B. Taney (7-2)
1. Africans imported to the US to be sold as slaves, or their decedents, were never intended to become US citizens. Therefore, they cannot be a party to the rights granted by the Constitution and lack the standing to file a lawsuit in federal court. This means his case must be dismissed on procedural grounds.
2. US Constitution Article IV §3 Clause 2, or the Property Clause, explicitly applies to territories at the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. Since the Missouri territory was organized in 1812, Congress did not have the authority to regulate slavery in any of the territories. Therefore the Missouri Compromise of 1820 is unconstitutional.
3. Any law which strips slaveowners of their 5th amendment property rights is unconstitutional. This means that even though Scott stepped foot in a ‘free’ state, it does not entitle him to be freed because the Due Process clause specifically prevents the federal government from freeing slaves.
Dissent: Justice B.R. Curtis
1. The court’s holding that blacks could never be citizens or possess any rights is baseless. When the Constitution was adopted in 1789, blacks could legally vote in 5 of the 13 states–meaning they were legally citizens within that state as well as federally.
2. Furthermore, invalidating the Missouri Compromise of 1820 is irrelevant to Dred Scott and casts doubt on Taney’s argument that the Framers were anti-abolition.
3. Curtis’ dissent was so persuasive it prompted Chief Justice Taney to add 18 additional pages to his opinion to dispel Curtis’ arguments
Dissent: Justice J. McLean
1. The basis for black individuals to lack citizenship is “…more a matter of taste than of law.” Furthermore, the majority’s opinion is based in obiter dicta–meaning it did not carry precedent or was essential to the decision of the case. Once the court decided it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case because Scott was not a citizen, it should have dismissed the case rather than rendering judgements on the merits of the case
2. In concurrence with B.R. Curtis’ dissent, because blacks could vote in 5 of the 13 states at the time of the Constitution’s adoption in 1789, blacks had historical precedent to be citizens
Significance:
Dred Scott is widely revered as one of the most infamous supreme court cases since the court’s inception because of its inherent racism, shoddy legal reasoning, and perceived judicial activism. Further, Dred Scott layed the foundation for the American Civil War which started just four years after its decision. Numerous legal scholars and future justices have denounced the ruling, with future Supreme Court Chief Justice C.E. Hughes calling it the court’s “…greatest self-inflicted wound”
Reflection:
Despite the relatively strong 7-2 ruling, Dred Scott was eventually overturned by numerous future laws and amendments, namely the 8th, 14th, and 15th amendments, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Overall, Dred Scott weakened the power of the federal government
Supreme Court Case Briefs 