Dred Scott v. Sandford
United States Supreme Court
60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
Dred Scott (plaintiff) was an African American man born a slave in Virginia in the late 1700s. In 1830, he was taken by his owners to Missouri, and he was then purchased by Army Major John Emerson in 1832. Emerson took Scott with him on various assignments in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory, areas that outlawed slavery based on Congress’s enactment of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri Compromise of 1820. While in Wisconsin, Emerson allowed Scott to marry, and Emerson later left Scott and his wife in Wisconsin when he was reassigned to Louisiana. While in Louisiana, Emerson married Eliza Irene Sandford. He then sent for Scott and his wife, who traveled to Louisiana to serve Emerson and his wife. After Emerson’s death in 1843, Emerson’s widow inherited his estate, including Scott. Scott attempted to purchase his freedom from Emerson’s widow, but she refused. In 1846, Scott sued Emerson’s widow for the freedom of himself and his family, but the Missouri Supreme Court upheld their slavery. Scott brought suit again in 1853 in federal district court against John Sandford (defendant), executor of Emerson’s estate. The federal court relied on Missouri law to find that Scott was still a slave, and the circuit court of appeals affirmed. Scott petitioned for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Taney, C.J.)
Concurrence (Grier, J.)
Concurrence (Campbell, J.)
Concurrence (Wayne, J.)
Concurrence (Nelson, J.)
Concurrence (Daniel, J.)
Concurrence (Catron, J.)
Dissent (Curtis, J.)
Dissent (McLean, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
