Dred Scott v. Sanford

t Taney1857. Facts. Scott was born a slave. He had been taken from Missouri to Illinois, a free state, by his master. Scott was taken to several other free states or territories. Scott was then taken back to Missouri (slave state), and sold to Sanford. Scott then sued for his freedom, contending that his having been taken into free states made him free. Jurisdiction was predicated on diversity of citizenship.

t Two holdings.

n Dred Scott was not a citizen of a state. “Citizens,” for constitutional purposes, refers to the sovereign people of the U.S. as they were understood to be at the time of the USC’s adoption. At that time, the Negro was considered to be an inferior class, one having no inherent liberty or property rights. A state may confer rights upon individuals living in it as it sees fit. It cannot, however, confer rights as a U.S. citizen by virtue of state law. The fact that in Illinois Scott could not be a slave does not alter the fact that Illinois’ ability to make Scott a free man extends no further than its borders and does not confer upon Scott rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship. Therefore, Scott was not a citizen of a state in U.S. constitutional sense, and therefore the SCt had no jurisdiction over the case.

n SCt went on (in dicta?) to hold that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which barred slavery from any territory north of the 36:30 latitude, violated the due process clause of the 5^th Amendment.

(1) Note that if Bill of Rightswere applicable to all states at the time, then Dred Scott would apply everywhere. However, since Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, Dred Scott did not apply in free states like Massachusetts.

t Dissent - Curtis. Disputed Taney’s account of the framers’ intent. Curtis argued that at the time the USC was ratified, a number of Northern states had black citizens, who voted on ratification. “It would be strange, if we were to find in that instrument anything which deprived of their citizenship any part of the people of the United States who were among those by whom it was established.”

t Historical Context by Koppelman. SCt here was attempting to solve the most divisive political issue of the day: whether individual territories should be permitted to abolish slavery.

n SCt’s intervention here was not necessarily countermajoritarian. President James Buchanan’s 1857 inaugural address described slavery in the territories as a “judicial question, which legitimately belongs to the SCt of the United States.” Nothing would have made Buchanan unhappier than a SCt holding that slavery was a question for the political branches.

n Is it ever/never appropriate for the SCt to attempt to resolve such divisive issues?

n Dred Scottis of continuing doctrinal relevance. One could argue that it is the negative twin of modern equal protection doctrine, defining the normative propositions that are now to be expelled from political decisionmaking: specifically, that blacks, and perhaps other classes as well, are “beings of an inferior order,” who have “no rights which [other citizens are] bound to respect.”

Date: 2015-01-02; view: 651