Dred Scott v. Sandford Study Notes

Great Cases in Constitutional Law: Chapter Three - Dred Scott v. Sandford and Its Legacy

Introduction

The chapter, authored by Cass R. Sunstein, explores the myths surrounding the Dred Scott case, its misinterpretations, and the authentic lessons it offers for three significant contemporary constitutional issues: affirmative action, homosexuality, and the right to die. Sunstein cites notable quotations from James Madison and Learned Hand to set the tone for a complex discussion of liberty and morality in governmental decision-making.

The Continuing Relevance of Dred Scott

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is regarded as potentially the most crucial Supreme Court case in U.S. history, noted for its far-reaching implications not only in legal circles but also in wider social and political contexts. Key observations include:

  • It was the first significant exercise of judicial review since Marbury v. Madison, marking a critical moment in the development of constitutional law.
  • It attempted to extract political moral questions from the political arena, establishing a precedent for future courts, particularly during the New Deal and Warren Courts.
  • Dred Scott introduced the controversial concept of "substantive due process," which has re-emerged in key cases like Roe v. Wade and discussions on the right to die.
  • It significantly utilized the “intent of the framers,” emphasizing the originalist interpretation that would later characterize the judicial philosophy of prominent justices including Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork.

Three Myths Surrounding Dred Scott

Sunstein identifies three prominent myths about the case:

  1. Myth of Constitutional Support for Slavery: The belief that the Constitution inherently supported slavery. Sunstein argues that this interpretation is legally false and misrepresents the Constitution’s actual stance, as it does not entrenched slavery.

  2. The Conventional American Reading of Dred Scott: Common perception depicts Chief Justice Roger Taney as morally blind and the Court as requiring a civil war to amend its views. Sunstein contends this view is incomplete and obscures greater complexities, suggesting instead that it reflects fundamental issues regarding the role of the Supreme Court in American democracy.

  3. Revisionist Interpretation by Critics: Some modern critics, including Justice Scalia, portray Dred Scott as a failure due to its deviation from the framers’ intentions. While acknowledging some merit to this view, Sunstein counters that Dred Scott was indeed an originalist opinion that sought to articulate framers' interpretations, despite criticisms of its conclusions.

Key Lessons from Dred Scott

Sunstein posits the real fault of Dred Scott lies in the Court's attempt to decisively resolve an issue that was deeply dividing the nation. The following principles are suggested for contemporary judicial strategy:

  • The Supreme Court should refrain from addressing political thickets, leaving major issues to democratic processes.
  • When adjudicating cases, courts should adopt casuistic methodologies, aiming for specific judgments rather than broad rulings.
  • The ultimate goal should be fostering democratic debate and reflection rather than disrupting it.

Contemporary Issues Linked to Dred Scott

Affirmative Action

Sunstein argues that courts should not invalidate affirmative action policies, likening judicial overreach in this regard to the hubris exhibited in Dred Scott. Instead, minimal interventions might be warranted to eliminate the most egregious examples of unfair practices while allowing political discourse to continue.

Right to Die

In the context of the right to die, Sunstein emphasizes a cautious and incremental approach. Instead of asserting a broad right to privacy, courts should focus on evaluating laws against contemporary values and societal norms, advocating for a dialogic relationship between legal and legislative bodies.

Homosexuality

When addressing discrimination based on sexual orientation, Sunstein advises courts to approach cautiously, advocating for a constitutional examination of discrimination while resisting engaging in politically charged areas without adequate support.

Dred Scott: Dramatization of Key Figures

Dred Scott
  • Dred Scott was born around 1799, possibly named Sam. His significant stature was approximately five feet, and despite being described as "illiterate but not ignorant," he demonstrated practical insights throughout his life. He initiated legal proceedings seeking freedom after attempts to purchase it were denied.
Peter and Elizabeth Blow
  • Dred Scott lived with the Blow family during his early life. The Blows acted as crucial allies in his legal battles post-mortem despite not opposing slavery fundamentally.
John Emerson and Irene Emerson
  • Dr. John Emerson, Scott's owner at a military post in Illinois, played a central role in Scott's case, and his widow, Irene Emerson, ultimately became the defendant.

The Legal Issues at Stake in Dred Scott

  1. Citizenship and Legal Standing: The question arose regarding Scott’s status as a citizen, which needed to be answered under Missouri's law. Justice Taney ruled that Scott, being of African descent, could not be considered a citizen, thus barring him from suing in federal court.
  2. Constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise: Taney declared that Congress lacked the authority to declare territories as free states, asserting that such actions infringed on property rights.
  3. Impact of Slavery on Status: The legal ramifications of Scott's residence in free states were central to the ruling, disputed by the Court through an interpretation of both Missouri law and the Compromise.

Judicial Hubris and its Implications

Sunstein identifies two dimensions of judicial overreach in the Dred Scott case:

  • The Court ventured beyond necessary legal questions, imposing broad rulings on contentious debates that should have been left to political negotiation.
  • It is presumptuous to expect a handful of justices to resolve deeply woven national issues, particularly when consensus is absent among the public.

Reflections on Lincoln and Institutional Integrity

Sunstein invokes Abraham Lincoln’s perspective on Dred Scott, emphasizing that constitutional interpretation is not solely the purview of the Court; it requires broader societal engagement. Lincoln suggested that a Supreme Court decision lacking historical grounding may be disregarded without rebellion, affirming the significance of democratic deliberation in judicial matters. Lincoln aptly claimed that if the public accepts Supreme Court rulings without question, it risks abdicating its authority to govern itself.

Conclusion

Overall, Dred Scott v. Sandford serves as a foundational case that encapsulates the complexities of slavery, citizenship, and the evolving role of the judiciary in America. Sunstein’s analysis not only critiques the historical decisions made but also connects the past to ongoing debates in contemporary constitutional law.