1. Dred Scott v. Sanford

2. Argued February 11–14, 1856. Reargued December 15–18, 1856
*Argued February 11–14, *Reargued December 15–18, *Decided March 6, 1857
PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
A slave was taken by his former master from Missouri to Illinois then to the Louisiana Territory and then back to Missouri where he was sold to the Defendant a citizen of New York. The Plaintiff brought suit for his freedom in the Circuit Court on the basis of Article III diversity jurisdiction, claiming that he was a citizen of Missouri. Plaintiff argued that his trips to “free” Illinois and the Louisiana Territory made him free. Defendant argued that even if Plaintiff was free, he was not a citizen of Missouri and therefore, that the Circuit Court lacked diversity jurisdiction over the case.
John Sanford, the brother-in-law of Scotts master, had to defend his case to remain custody of the slaves which included Scott. Sanford had remarried and by law in Missouri, control of the probate passed to John Sanford. Defendant argued that even if Plaintiff was free, he was not a citizen of Missouri and therefore, that the Circuit Court lacked diversity jurisdiction over the case.

3. DECISION
In March 1857, the majority opinion stated that because of Scott’s race he was not a citizen and had no right to sue under the Constitution. Stretching beyond the case of the moment, the court’s decision also invalidated the Missouri Compromise of 1820 that had for nearly 40 years placed restrictions on slavery north of the parallel 36 degrees, 30 minutes, in the vast territory of the Louisiana Purchase.

4. REPERCUSSIONS & LASTING IMPACT
This case had a huge effect on federalism and changed the view of politics. The decision had gave more power to the National Government and overturned the Missouri Compromise taking away some of the sovereignty of the states. This case was also referred too during the Bush v Gore case when it was claimed to be a “self inflicted wound” in which it would take time to recover.