Which amendment overturned dred scott

Equality content written by Linda R. Monk, Constitutional scholar. Explore More Equality Topics. Learn More. Your purchase supports PBS and helps make our programming possible. Shop PBS Amazon. Support your local PBS station in our mission to inspire, enrich, and educate. Scott then filed another lawsuit in a federal circuit court claiming damages against Sanford's brother, John F.

Sanford, for Sanford's alleged physical abuse against him. The jury ruled that Scott could not sue in federal court because he had already been deemed a slave under Missouri law. Scott appealed to the U. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in Due to a clerical error at the time, Sanford's name was misspelled in court records.

Taney , ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to take Scott's case because Scott was, or at least had been, a slave. First, the Court argued that they could not entertain Scott's case because federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are courts of "peculiar and limited jurisdiction " and may only hear cases brought by select parties involving limited claims.

Constitution, federal courts may only hear cases brought by "citizens" of the United States. The Court ruled that because Scott was "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves," and thus "[not] a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution," Scott was not a citizen and had no right to file a lawsuit in federal court.

Second, the Court argued that Scott's status as a citizen of a free state did not necessarily give him status as a U. While the states were free to create their own citizenship criteria, and had done so before the Constitution even came into being, the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to define national citizenship.

Moreover, the Court argued that even if Scott was deemed "free" under the laws of a state, he would still not qualify as an American citizen because he was black. The Court asserted that, in general, U. Finally, the Court argued that, in any case, Scott could not be defined as free by virtue of his residency in the Wisconsin Territory, because Congress lacked the power to ban slavery in U.

The Court viewed slaves as "property," and the Fifth Amendment forbids Congress from taking property away from individuals without just compensation. Link: Library of Congress resources. The case had been in the court system for more than a decade. Scott had been born into slavery in After his master, Dr. John Emerson, died in , Scott filed suit on behalf of himself and his wife, also a slave, to gain their freedom. The case was heard by three other courts as it made its way to Washington.

The Dred Scott decision came just two days after President James Buchanan took office, and it set the tone for his controversial term that led to the Civil War. The court also declared the Missouri Compromise of to be unconstitutional.