Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court of the United States Argued February 11–14, 1856 Reargued December 15–18, 1856 Decided March 6, 1857 Full case name Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford[1] Citations 60 U.S. 393 (more) 19 Howard 393; 15 L. Ed. 691; 1856 WL 8721; 1857 U.S. LEXIS 472 Prior history Judgment for defendant, C.C. Mo. Holding Judgment reversed and suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 1. Persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Const. Plaintiff is without standing to file a suit. 2. The Property Clause is only applicable to lands possessed at the time of ratification (1787). As such, Congress cannot ban slavery in the territories. Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional. 3. Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from freeing slaves brought into federal territories. Court membership Chief Justice Roger B. Taney Associate Justices John McLean · James M. Wayne John Catron · Peter V. Daniel Samuel Nelson · Robert C. Grier Benjamin R. Curtis · John A. Campbell Case opinions Majority Taney, joined by Wayne, Catron, Daniel, Nelson, Grier, Campbell Concurrence Wayne Concurrence Catron Concurrence Daniel Concurrence Nelson, joined by Grier Concurrence Grier Concurrence Campbell Dissent McLean Dissent Curtis Laws applied U.S. Const. amend. V; Missouri Compromise Superseded by U.S. Const. amends. XIII, XIV Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[2][3] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved African American man who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court denied Scotts request. For only the second time in its history the Supreme Court ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.[4] Although Taney hoped that his ruling would settle the slavery question once and for all, the decision immediately spurred vehement dissent from anti-slavery elements in the North, especially Republicans. Most scholars today (as did many contemporary lawyers) consider the ruling regarding slavery in the territories to be dictum, not binding precedent. The decision would prove to be an indirect catalyst for the American Civil War. It was functionally superseded by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gave blacks full citizenship. It is now widely regarded by scholars as the worst decision made by the United States Supreme Court.[3][5][6]
Posted on: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 00:32:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015