Dred Scott V. Sandford Case Study

Words: 516
Pages: 3

Govt 2305 Section Name: Connor Kelln

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Summary of Facts: Dred Scott v. Sandford was a landmark United States Supreme Court case on US labor law and constitutional law. Dred Scott, an enslaved man who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In the decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott's request. It held that black people, whose ancestors were imported and sold as slaves, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore couldn’t sue in federal court. Also, after the states became united, the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the territories acquired since.
Constitutional Question(s) raised by the case:
1. If Scott was a citizen according
…show more content…
1. Persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Constitution, so Scott is without standing to file a suit.
2. The Property Clause is only applicable to land owned at the time of ratification (1787). Thus, Congress cannot ban slavery in the territories, making the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.
3. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from freeing slaves brought into federal territories.
Majority Opinion: The US Supreme Court held that Scott was not a citizen and had no standing to sue. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney held that Scott's case did not need to be heard according to Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. Because he was a descendant of African slaves, Scott was not a citizen. Taney also said that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 wasn’t within the powers of Congress, making it unconstitutional. Finally, territories or states where slavery had been abolished were not entitled to free slaves, because it would infringe upon slaveholder's "property" rights.
Other