Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Description from Professor Chen's Open Casebook:

This case arose from the controversy surrounding the Missouri Compromise. Before the Civil War, there was a contentious dispute about whether new territories that became States would be permitted to allow slavery or not. The Missouri Compromise was the result of a deal that authorized new States below a defined latitude to permit slavery if they chose, but in new States above that latitude, slavery would be prohibited. A Missouri resident named John Emerson "owned" Dred Scott, but traveled with Mr. Scott to Illinois, where slavery was prohibited. Mr. Scott argued that upon entering Illinois, he became free, and sued Sandford (the executor of Emerson's estate) in federal court to get a ruling that he was free. The basis for subject matter jurisdiction was diversity of citizenship.

Among the issues presented to the Supreme Court in this case was whether the Missouri Compromise was valid, and on the merits, the Court declared the Compromise to be unconstitutional. Many historians and legal scholars believe that Chief Justice Roger Taney, who wrote the opinion, believed that this ruling would definitively end the national debate over slavery. Instead, the decision in this case is thought to be one of the most important events that triggered the beginning of the Civil War. In addition, a significant portion of the American public no longer had faith in the Supreme Court as an institution for many years following this decision.

What follows is a short portion of the opinion in which the Court examines the question of whether Mr. Scott was a citizen of a State for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. This decision was later superseded by the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.