Dred Scott v. Sandford

Facts

Dred Scott, with his wife Harriet and their daughters Eliza and Lizzie, was held as a slave in Missouri by Sandford. The facts were agreed. Dr. Emerson, an army surgeon, owned Scott. In 1834 Emerson took Scott from Missouri to the military post at Rock Island, in Illinois, and held him there as a slave until April or May 1836. Emerson then moved Scott to Fort Snelling, on the west bank of the Mississippi, in territory acquired from France, north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude and north of Missouri. He held Scott there as a slave until 1838. In 1835 Harriet, then the slave of Major Taliaferro, was taken to Fort Snelling, and in 1836 she was sold to Emerson. That year Scott and Harriet married at Fort Snelling with Emerson's consent. Eliza was born on a steamboat on the Mississippi north of Missouri's northern line. Lizzie was born in Missouri. In 1838 Emerson moved Scott, Harriet and Eliza back to Missouri, where they stayed. Before this suit began, Emerson sold the family to Sandford, who claimed to hold them as slaves. Scott had also brought a freedom suit in the Missouri state courts. The Supreme Court of Missouri decided that he and his family were still slaves and reversed a judgment in his favor. The case was then left pending by agreement to await this decision.

Issues

1. Can a person descended from Africans who were imported into this country and sold as slaves be a citizen of a State within the meaning of the Constitution, and so sue in a federal court?
2. Did Scott's stay at Fort Snelling, in territory where an act of Congress prohibited slavery, make him free, and is that act within Congress's powers under the Constitution?
3. Did Scott's stay in Illinois make him free, or did his status after returning to Missouri depend on Missouri law?

Holding

Scott, a descendant of Africans imported and sold as slaves, was not a citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution, so the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction. The Court also held that the act of Congress prohibiting slavery north of the line was not warranted by the Constitution and was void, so it did not free Scott or his family, and that his status after Illinois depended on Missouri law, under which he was not free.