In the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, what did the Supreme Court rule?

In the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, what did the Supreme Court rule?

• A. It ruled that African Americans could not be citizens and that Congress had no power to ban slavery in U.S. territories.
• B. It upheld the right of Congress to ban slavery in new territories.
• C. It declared that slavery should be legal in all territories.
• D. It protected slaveholding in new states.

Answer: (A)

This item centers on what the Dred Scott decision said about who could be a citizen and what the federal government could regulate in the territories. The Supreme Court ruled that African Americans could not be citizens of the United States, so Dred Scott lacked standing to sue in federal court. It also held that Congress had no power to ban slavery in new U.S. territories because enslaved people were considered property, and the Fifth Amendment protects property from being taken away without due process. That combination meant the federal government couldn’t forbid slavery in territories, reinforcing slaveholding rights there. Context helps: this decision, written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in 1857, intensified sectional tensions on the eve of the Civil War and was later overturned by amendments that enshrine equal citizenship and prohibit slavery. The other options misstate the ruling by implying Congress could ban slavery in territories, or asserting slavery should be legal in all territories, or that slaveholding was protected in new states—none of which captures the ruling about citizenship and congressional power in territories.

This item centers on what the Dred Scott decision said about who could be a citizen and what the federal government could regulate in the territories. The Supreme Court ruled that African Americans could not be citizens of the United States, so Dred Scott lacked standing to sue in federal court. It also held that Congress had no power to ban slavery in new U.S. territories because enslaved people were considered property, and the Fifth Amendment protects property from being taken away without due process. That combination meant the federal government couldn’t forbid slavery in territories, reinforcing slaveholding rights there.

Context helps: this decision, written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in 1857, intensified sectional tensions on the eve of the Civil War and was later overturned by amendments that enshrine equal citizenship and prohibit slavery. The other options misstate the ruling by implying Congress could ban slavery in territories, or asserting slavery should be legal in all territories, or that slaveholding was protected in new states—none of which captures the ruling about citizenship and congressional power in territories.