--- title: "Dred Scott v. Sandford" description: "Persons of African descent — whether enslaved or free — could never be 'citizens' under Article III and thus had no standing to sue in federal court. The Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional as an uncompensated taking of slave 'property' in violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process. Scott…" type: "case" court: "U.S. Supreme Court" decided: "1857-03-06" citation: "60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)" status: "Overruled by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments" source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/cases/dred-scott-v-sandford-1857.html" --- # Dred Scott v. Sandford _Full caption: Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford_ **Citation:** 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) **Status:** Overruled by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Court | U.S. Supreme Court | | Argued | February 11, 1856 | | Decided | March 6, 1857 | | Vote | 7-2 | | Majority author | Taney, C.J. | | Joined by | Wayne, Catron, Daniel, Nelson, Grier, Campbell, JJ. | ## Question presented Whether Dred Scott, a Black man born into slavery, could sue in federal court as a 'citizen' under Article III; whether Congress had authority under the Missouri Compromise to prohibit slavery in federal territories; whether Scott's temporary residence in a free territory made him free. ## Holding Persons of African descent — whether enslaved or free — could never be 'citizens' under Article III and thus had no standing to sue in federal court. The Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional as an uncompensated taking of slave 'property' in violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process. Scott remained a slave. ## Reasoning Chief Justice Taney's opinion held that Blacks were 'so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.' Taney's substantive-due-process reasoning — that Congress could not deprive persons of 'property' (enslaved humans) in the territories — was widely regarded as a catalyst of the Civil War. Overturned by the Thirteenth (1865), Fourteenth (1868), and Fifteenth (1870) Amendments. ## Opinions ### Majority — Taney, C.J. _Joined by Wayne, Catron, Daniel, Nelson, Grier, Campbell, JJ._ Persons of African descent — whether enslaved or free — could never be 'citizens' under Article III and thus had no standing to sue in federal court. The Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional as an uncompensated taking of slave 'property' in violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process. Scott remained a slave. ### Concurrence — Wayne, J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Fully joined Taney. ### Concurrence — Nelson, J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Narrower ground. ### Concurrence — Grier, J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Concurred. ### Concurrence — Daniel, J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Concurred. ### Concurrence — Campbell, J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Concurred. ### Concurrence — Catron, J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Concurred. ### Dissent — McLean, J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Argued Congress had power to prohibit slavery in territories. ### Dissent — Curtis, J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Famous dissent showing Blacks were citizens in several states at the Founding; resigned from the Court shortly after. ## Key quotes > "[Blacks] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." > — Taney, C.J. (majority) · 60 U.S. at 407 ## Practical effect Widely considered one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history. Contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War. Constitutionally overruled by the Reconstruction Amendments. ## Perspectives The summaries below are descriptive, not evaluative — an attempt to represent fairly how each camp typically frames this case. ### Abolitionist framing The central historical analogy in the modern Christian abolitionist movement. Both Dred Scott and Roe are seen as decisions where the Supreme Court denied legal personhood to a class of human beings, using substantive due process against the political process. Reagan's 'Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation' (1983) canonized the analogy for the pro-life movement. Justice Scalia drew the parallel in his Casey (1992) and Stenberg (2000) dissents. **Honest note for the ministry**: the moral parallel is strong; the doctrinal parallel is more contested. Dred Scott combined a citizenship/jurisdiction holding with a property/due process holding. Roe rested on substantive due process alone. Careful scholars (Jamin Raskin in 1 Am. U. J. Gender & L. 61 (1992)) argue the parallel is rhetorical more than legal. ### Mainstream pro-life framing Also central to mainstream pro-life rhetoric — used by Reagan, Scalia, and many others. ### Pro-choice framing Advocates reject the analogy, arguing Dred Scott denied full personhood to already-born human beings with independent consciousness, while abortion involves a developing fetus without such consciousness. ## Significance Not an abortion case at all, but the most important historical/rhetorical analog for the Christian abolitionist movement. The moral parallel to Roe is a cornerstone of the movement. | Measure | Score | | --- | --- | | Overall significance | 9 / 10 | | Legal precedential weight | 10 | | Practical impact on access | 0 | | Movement relevance (abolitionist) | 10 | | Enduring relevance, 2026 | 9 | ## Sources ### Primary sources - [supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/) ### Secondary sources - [digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi](https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1201&context=jgspl) ## Notes Included in this dataset not because Dred Scott concerns abortion, but because it is the single most important historical analogy in modern abolitionist rhetoric. Any resource website discussing the abolitionist parallel to 19th-century antislavery must engage with Dred Scott.