Dred Scott v. Sandford Case Brief

Dred Scott v. Sandford

60 U.S. 393 | 15 L. Ed. 691 | 19 How. 393 | 1856 U.S. LEXIS 472

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Takeaway

In short, this case denied Black citizenship, invalidated the Missouri Compromise, and held that Scott remained enslaved; its central holdings were later repudiated by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Background

Dred Scott, an enslaved man held in Missouri, sued John F. A. Sandford in federal circuit court for the freedom of himself, his wife Harriet, and their daughters Eliza and Lizzie. Scott alleged that he became free when his owner, Army surgeon Dr. Emerson, took him to Illinois and then to Fort Snelling in territory north of the Missouri Compromise line, where federal law purported to prohibit slavery. Harriet had also been taken to Fort Snelling, where she and Scott married with Emerson's consent.

Scott alleged diversity jurisdiction by claiming Missouri citizenship and alleging that Sandford was a New York citizen. Sandford pleaded that Scott could not be a Missouri citizen for federal-jurisdiction purposes because he was of African descent and descended from people imported and sold as slaves. The circuit court rejected that plea, but, after trial on agreed facts, instructed the jury that the law favored Sandford. The jury found for Sandford, and Scott sought review in the Supreme Court.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Supreme Court could review the Circuit Court's jurisdiction even though the court had rejected Sandford's plea in abatement and Sandford then pleaded to the merits.

Holding

Yes. Federal jurisdiction could not be created by waiver, consent, or a party's failure to persist in a jurisdictional objection, and the whole record was before the Supreme Court on the writ of error.

Reasoning

The Court emphasized that federal courts are courts of limited and enumerated jurisdiction. A plaintiff invoking diversity jurisdiction must affirmatively show on the record that the case falls within the Constitution and statutes granting federal judicial power; jurisdiction is not presumed as it ordinarily is in a court of general jurisdiction.

Because the plea in abatement and the ruling on it were part of the record, the Court concluded that it had a duty to determine whether the Circuit Court had authority to hear the case. Sandford's later pleas on the merits could not waive a defect in subject-matter jurisdiction.

The Court also maintained that, on review of a federal circuit court judgment, it could examine the full record and correct additional jurisdictional errors. It distinguished review of a federal circuit court from review of a state-court judgment, where the Supreme Court's own appellate jurisdiction must first be established.

Issue #2

Whether a person of African descent whose ancestors were imported and sold as slaves could be a citizen of a State within the meaning of Article III and sue in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.

Holding

No. The Court held that Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri or of the United States for purposes of Article III and therefore could not invoke diversity jurisdiction.

Reasoning

The Court treated the constitutional terms "people of the United States" and "citizens" as referring to the political community that formed the national sovereign. It concluded that persons descended from enslaved Africans were not understood by the Constitution's framers to belong to that political community, whether those persons were enslaved or free.

To support that conclusion, the Court relied on colonial and early state legislation, the Constitution's clauses concerning the slave trade and fugitive slaves, early federal naturalization and militia laws, and executive practices concerning passports. It read those sources as showing a historical understanding that Black people of African descent were a subordinate class excluded from national citizenship.

The Court distinguished state-law citizenship from national citizenship. In its view, a State might grant free Black residents some state-law rights, but could not thereby make them citizens of the United States entitled to federal diversity jurisdiction or to the constitutional privileges and immunities of state citizenship in other States.

Issue #3

Whether Congress had constitutional power to prohibit slavery in the Louisiana Territory north of 36°30′ through the Missouri Compromise Act of 1820.

Holding

No. The Court held that the Missouri Compromise's prohibition of slavery in that territory was unconstitutional and void.

Reasoning

The Court read the Territorial Clause, authorizing Congress to make needful rules and regulations respecting territory or other property belonging to the United States, as directed primarily to territory held by the Confederation when the Constitution was adopted. It rejected the view that the clause supplied a general and unlimited power to legislate over territory later acquired from foreign nations.

The Court nevertheless accepted that the United States could acquire and temporarily govern territory as an incident of national sovereignty and the power to admit new States. But it held that the federal government entered a territory subject to the same constitutional limits that restrained it elsewhere, including protections for individual rights and property.

Because the Constitution expressly recognized slave property, the Court reasoned that Congress could not deprive a citizen of slave property merely because the citizen entered a federal territory. It characterized the Missouri Compromise as an unconstitutional deprivation of property without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.

Issue #4

Whether Scott and his family became free because they had lived in Illinois and at Fort Snelling before returning to Missouri.

Holding

No. The Court held that the invalidity of the Missouri Compromise defeated the claim based on Fort Snelling, and that Scott's status after returning from Illinois was governed by Missouri law, which the Missouri Supreme Court had held did not free him or his family.

Reasoning

As to Fort Snelling, the Court concluded that the Missouri Compromise could not free Scott, Harriet, or their children because Congress lacked power to prohibit slaveholding in the territory. The Court stated that this result would follow even if Emerson had taken them there intending to remain permanently.

As to Illinois, the Court relied on Strader v. Graham for the proposition that a person's status as free or enslaved upon returning to a slave State depends on the law of that State, not on the law of the free State where the person had temporarily lived. Missouri, in the Court's view, remained free to determine whether it would recognize an emancipation claimed under Illinois law.

The Court treated the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in Scott v. Emerson as establishing that Scott and his family remained enslaved under Missouri law after their return. Because Scott was thus not a Missouri citizen, the Circuit Court should have dismissed the suit rather than entering judgment for Sandford on the merits.

Concurrences

Justice Wayne

Reasoning

Justice Wayne joined the Chief Justice's opinion without qualification. He wrote separately to stress that the Court had decided questions actually presented by the record and necessary to resolve the case, rather than issuing an advisory opinion.

He rejected the claim that discussion of the Missouri Compromise was extrajudicial. In his view, a writ of error from a federal circuit court brought the entire record before the Supreme Court, allowing it to correct both the erroneous assertion of jurisdiction and the errors bearing on the merits.

Justice Nelson

Reasoning

Justice Nelson would have resolved the case without deciding Scott's citizenship or the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. He concluded that the Circuit Court's judgment for Sandford should be affirmed because Missouri law controlled Scott's status after his return to that State.

He reasoned from conflict-of-laws principles that Illinois law had no force in Missouri unless Missouri chose to recognize it. Missouri's highest court had held in Scott's own state case that temporary residence in Illinois or the federal territory did not free him upon his return to Missouri, and the federal court was bound to follow that state-law determination.

Nelson also concluded that Emerson's residence at military posts was temporary and connected to his federal service, not a change of permanent domicile. Even assuming Congress's territorial prohibition was valid, Nelson concluded that it could not displace Missouri's law governing status within Missouri's borders.

Justice Grier

Reasoning

Justice Grier agreed with Justice Nelson's state-law analysis and with Chief Justice Taney's conclusions that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Scott could not sue as a Missouri citizen. He viewed the record as initially alleging a sufficient basis for federal jurisdiction, but as ultimately demonstrating through the merits issues that Scott was a slave and thus unable to maintain the federal suit.

He considered the precise form of disposition unimportant between the parties. Whether the judgment for Sandford was affirmed or the action was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the result was that Scott could not proceed in federal court.

Justice Daniel

Reasoning

Justice Daniel agreed that a person held as a slave could not be a citizen and argued more broadly that emancipation by a private owner could not itself confer the political status of citizenship. In his view, citizenship was a status that only sovereign governmental authority could bestow, and the African race had not been included in the federal political community at the Constitution's founding.

He also maintained that Missouri retained exclusive authority over the domestic institution of slavery within its borders. Illinois law could not, in his view, strip a Missouri owner of rights that Missouri law recognized after the owner and enslaved person returned to Missouri.

Daniel concluded that the Missouri Compromise was invalid. He reasoned that the Territorial Clause did not authorize Congress to confiscate or impair slave property and that Congress could not deny slaveholding citizens equal access to territory held for the common benefit of the States.

Justice Campbell

Reasoning

Justice Campbell did not rest his conclusion on the plea to jurisdiction. He concluded instead that the merits showed Scott and his family remained enslaved under Missouri law and that the Circuit Court's general judgment should not stand because the case should be dismissed for want of federal jurisdiction.

He viewed Scott's military-post residence as temporary and found no basis to infer that Emerson acquired a new domicile in Illinois or the Wisconsin Territory. In Campbell's view, Missouri could decide whether the temporary presence of a master and slave in a free jurisdiction altered their relationship after their return.

Campbell rejected the view that the Territorial Clause gave Congress municipal sovereignty to alter the personal status of citizens or to dissolve the master-slave relationship. He therefore concluded that the Missouri Compromise did not free Scott or his family.

Justice Catron

Reasoning

Justice Catron thought the Court should not revisit the rejected plea to jurisdiction on Scott's writ of error. In his view, Sandford waived that plea by answering on the merits, and Scott could not complain about a ruling on the plea that had been in his own favor.

On the merits, Catron agreed with Justice Nelson that Illinois did not free Scott under the circumstances of this case. He understood Illinois law to permit a master's temporary transit or sojourn with enslaved persons and considered Emerson's military service temporary rather than a permanent move.

Catron took a different route from Chief Justice Taney on congressional power: he believed Congress generally had authority to govern the Territories. But he concluded that the Missouri Compromise was void because it conflicted with the Louisiana Purchase treaty and, in his view, denied slaveholding citizens and their States equal rights in the common territory. He would have affirmed the judgment for Sandford rather than order dismissal.

Dissents

Justice McLean

Reasoning

Justice McLean argued that the jurisdictional plea was defective because it did not allege that Scott was actually enslaved when he filed suit. The plea alleged only African ancestry and that Scott's ancestors had been sold as slaves, facts that did not necessarily negate his freedom or Missouri citizenship.

He rejected the majority's conclusion that Black people could never be citizens of the United States. In his view, a free person born in the United States and domiciled in a State was a citizen for diversity purposes, and several States had recognized free Black people as citizens and voters at the founding.

McLean concluded that Congress had authority under the Territorial Clause to establish territorial governments and prohibit slavery there. The long congressional practice of governing territories, beginning with the adoption of the Northwest Ordinance under the new Constitution, confirmed that construction; the Missouri Compromise was therefore valid.

He argued that slavery existed only by local law. Scott's lawful residence in Illinois and in territory where slavery was prohibited made him free, and Missouri's earlier decisions had repeatedly held that freedom once acquired was not lost upon return to Missouri. McLean considered the Missouri Supreme Court's later reversal an abrupt departure from settled law, influenced by anti-abolitionist political pressure, and not a rule the federal Court should follow.

Justice Curtis

Reasoning

Justice Curtis concluded that the plea to jurisdiction was insufficient because it alleged only Scott's ancestry, not that he was enslaved when he sued. He further reasoned that free Black persons were citizens in several original States at the founding and that those state citizens were necessarily citizens of the United States under the Constitution.

Curtis argued that once the majority found no federal jurisdiction, it had no authority to decide the merits or the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. He viewed the majority's extended constitutional ruling as beyond the judicial power of a court that had held the case must be dismissed.

On the merits, Curtis concluded that the Territorial Clause expressly authorized Congress to make all needful rules and regulations for United States territory. The text, the purpose of territorial government, and a long line of congressional enactments either allowing or prohibiting slavery in particular territories established Congress's power to enact the Missouri Compromise.

Curtis also concluded that Wisconsin territorial law directly changed Scott's status to freedom. Scott and Harriet lawfully married there with Emerson's consent, and their marriage carried civil rights that could not coherently coexist with their being treated as enslaved property. Missouri was required by ordinary conflict-of-laws principles to recognize the freedom and marriage validly created in the territory, and Curtis would have reversed for a new trial.