Judicial Activism Dred Scott v. Sandford, Lecture notes of Law

Download Judicial Activism Dred Scott v. Sandford and more Lecture notes Law in PDF only on Docsity! Caitlin Annicelli Teaching American History Judicial Activism Dred Scott v. Sandford Under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall, the Supreme Court defined it role in the United States government. Marshall’s ruled in several cases that the national law was in all instances the dominate law. The state law had to give way to the national law. The Supreme Court had the power to determine what the Constitution meant. Even though Marshall seemed to secure the supremacy of the Supreme Court and national laws, his precedent Roger B. Taney threatened to undone his work. Chief Justice Taney was appointed by Andrew Jackson because of his state’s rights stance. He made several rulings that took power away from the federal government. However, Chief Justice Taney will be remembered for his ruling in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Taney held that African Americans were not citizens and the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional. Some make the argument that Chief Justice Taney represented judicial activism. Judicial activism is when the court uses its power to influence policy. Judicial activism is a controversial issue. Those who support it believe that it is the role of the federal government to change policy that discriminates. Critics argue that the court oversteps its role when it challenges state and federal law. Dred Scott v. Sandford is an example of judicial activism National Standards: (Based on Advanced Placement United States’ Government) IV. Institutions of National Government: The Congress, the Presidency, the Bureaucracy, and the Federal Courts Objectives: 1. Students will be able to identify and explain the term judicial activism. 2. Students will be able to use the Dred Scott case as an example of judicial activism 3. Students will be able to identify other cases in which the United States’ Supreme Court was criticized for its use of judicial activism. Time Frame: Two 90 minute periods or four 45 minute periods. Background In 1846, Dred Scott was a slave lining in St. Louis. He had been the slave of Doctor John Emerson, an army surgeon. After the death of John Emerson, Scott sued for his freedom. In 1847, his case went to trial, he lost on a technical ground. In 1850, the Missouri Supreme Court granted Scott a new trial. He and his family won their freedom. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the decision two years later (Finklemen, 3-4) Dred Scott turned to the federal courts for help. In 1854, the United States Circuit Court of Missouri upheld Scott’s right to sue, but denied his freedom. The case was then heard by the United States Supreme Court. It is there that Chief Justice Roger B. Taney declared: “(1) that no blacks could ever be a citizen of the United States and thus blacks could not sue in Federal Courts, and (2) that Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in federal territories and thus the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional, as were other restrictions on slavery in the territories” (Finklemen, 4). This ruling ignited the already heated debate on slavery and states’ rights. The story of Dred Scott had numerous implications. In his fight for freedom, Dred Scott highlighted the antebellum tension over slavery. The case also represented the important role the Bush's Comments on the Dred Scott Case MICHAELSON: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why? Bush responded with the following: "I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States." "Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick. I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution." "Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights." "That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America." "And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution." Answer the Following Questions: 1. What do you think George Bush meant by "I would pick people that would be strict constructionists"? 2. Have you heard the phrase "strict construction" before? 3. How would you interpret the phrase strict construction? 4. Do you think that strict construction is possible? 5. What issues might arise from a strict constructionist take on major contemporary legal issues like gay marriage, medical marijuana use, etc.? 6. What is "precedent"? 7. How do you think judicial decisions should be made? On what basis? Bush, George W. "The Second Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate." Washington University, St. Louis, MO. 8 October 2004. Online. Available: http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html Dred Scott v. Sandford Background Summary & Questions Had he filed his lawsuit a few years earlier, Dred Scott probably never would have become a giant figure in U.S. history. Many people in Scott's position had won their lawsuits in state trial courts. However, by the time Scott's case made it to trial, U.S. political sentiments had changed and it took 11 years for his case to reach the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford remains among its most controversial. Slavery was at the root of Dred Scott's case. He sued his master to obtain freedom for himself and his family. The argument he used was that because he had lived in a territory where slavery was illegal, he could never again be enslaved. This was a doctrine that was recognized in common law for centuries in Europe. In the state where he filed his suit, Missouri, many people in his situation had sued their masters for their freedom and won. Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia around 1799. In 1834, Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon in the U.S. army, bought Scott in Missouri and moved him to Illinois. Illinois was a free state. In 1836, Scott and Emerson moved to Fort Snelling, in present-day Minnesota. In the Missouri Compromise of 1820, Congress had prohibited slavery in the area that included Fort Snelling. Emerson bought a slave named Harriet and Scott married her in 1836. In 1838, Emerson and the Scotts moved back to Missouri. The Scotts had two daughters, Eliza, born around 1843, and Lizzie, born around 1850. Emerson died in 1843 and he left his possessions, including the Scotts, to his widow, Irene. They lived in St. Louis, Missouri. In 1846, Dred Scott asked Mrs. Emerson if he could work for money. If he could earn and save money, he could buy his freedom from Mrs. Emerson. According to Scott, she refused. Scott sued Mrs. Emerson for "false imprisonment" and for battery. It was common for slaves who had been taken to free land to sue their masters and win their freedom. Scott sued Mrs. Emerson, claiming that Emerson held him illegally. Scott claimed that he had become a free man as soon as he lived in a free territory or state and then was taken against his will to a slave territory or state. In 1847, Emerson was able to win in Missouri Circuit court on a technicality; Scott's lawyers failed to prove to the jury that Emerson was holding Scott as a slave. Scott's lawyers successfully argued for a retrial with additional witnesses that could prove Emerson's ownership of Scott. By the time the case went to trial in 1850, Mrs. Emerson had moved to Massachusetts and left John F.A. Sanford, her brother, in charge of her financial matters, including the Scott case. The jury agreed that Scott and his family should be free because of the doctrine "once free, always free." Sanford, acting for his sister, appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court. In 1852, two of the three judges found in favor of Mrs. Emerson and John Sanford. The decision consciously reversed earlier precedent. The newly elected proslavery justice, William Scott, wrote the decision, arguing that states like Missouri must have the power to refuse to enforce the laws of other states. Thus, regardless of wherever else Scott had been with his master, slavery was legal in Missouri. Dred Scott's lawyers could have appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, but they feared that a majority of the justices would simply endorse the state court decision without considering its merits. By 1853, John Sanford was legally recognized as the owner of the Scotts. Sanford had moved to New York, leaving the Scotts in Missouri. Since federal courts settle the dispute between citizens of different states, Scott was able to sue Sanford in federal court in a new case. A clerk mistakenly added a letter to Sanford's name, so the case permanently became Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford. In 1854, the U. S. Court for the District of Missouri heard the case. Judge Robert W. Wells rejected Sanford's assertion that Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen. However, the judge instructed the jury that, as the Missouri Supreme Court had said, Scott was subject only to the laws of Missouri. The jury found for Sanford. Scott then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Unfortunately for Scott, the political divisions over slavery worsened from the time that his case first came to trial in 1847 through 1857 when the Supreme Court of the United States finally announced its decision. Events of this period that increased conflicts included the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act (1850), publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852), enactment of The Kansas- Nebraska Act (1854), violence in "bleeding Kansas" (1856), and Representative Brooks's beating of Senator Sumner in the U.S. Senate (1856). Like almost all people of their time, the justices had strong personal views about slavery. One justice, Peter V. Daniel of Virginia, supported slavery so much that he even refused to travel north of the Mason-Dixon line into a free state. Some historians believe that Chief Justice Taney hoped that his decision in the Dred Scott case would help prevent, not create future disputes over slavery. Questions to Consider 1. Dred Scott was the plaintiff (the person who sued the defendant) in this case. Why did he sue the Emersons and John Sanford? What was his goal? 2. Summarize the basic argument that Scott's lawyers used to support his case. Did Dred Scott have reason to believe that he would win his case? 3. Why was a new case brought to the federal court system? What circumstances made the case a federal question? 4. How do you think the bitter political climate of the day affected Dred Scott's chances of winning his case? Street Law Landmark Cases: Background Summary. 25 August 2011 <http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/539/Background_Summary__Questions_>. The Precedent Argument: Judicial Questions: 1. Did Scott have the right to sue? 2. Was Scott free as a result of living in a state and territory where slavery was illegal? 3. Was it constitutional for the Congress to limit slavery in the territories? (Discuss the Missouri Compromise briefly.) Answer the 3 judicial questions based on precedents set by the Supreme Court or applicable state rulings in cases that dealt with similar judicial issues occurring before 1857. State any inconsistencies between the precedents, if found. Rachel v. Walker (1836 Missouri Supreme Court case) -- Missouri's case law prior to the Dred Scott case showed that in the cases where slave owners took slaves to free territory and then returned to the slave state, the slaves were actually emancipated upon arrival in the free state. This was based on an informal legal precedent called "comity" (one court recognizing the jurisdiction of another.) This particular case determined that even an officer residing on a military post in a free state was obligated to follow that state's rules. U.S. v. The Amistad (1841 U.S. Supreme Court case) -- In this case, kidnapped Africans were transported from Guinea to Cuba on a Portuguese slave ship in violation of Spanish laws forbidding the international slave trade. The slaves were sold to two Spaniards who were overpowered by the Africans while transporting them on the Amistad. The Africans were attempting to return to Africa, but the ship landed near Long Island, New York and they were taken to New London, Connecticut. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Africans stating that there was no evidence that the Africans were in fact slaves (they found that the documents that the Cubans had given were falsified.) However, even though the Court did rule in the Africans favor, they did not use the language of the defense argument which stated that because the Africans were brought into the free states of New York and Connecticut they were legally free. Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842 U.S. Supreme Court case) -- This case dealt with the constitutionality of personal liberty laws in free states. In this case Pennsylvania's 1826 law was used to prosecute a slave-catcher (Prigg) who had taken Margaret Moran to Maryland without the required "certificate of removal." The Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania act was unconstitutional and that a master had the right to recapture runaway slaves based on common law or because of the fugitive-slave clause in the Constitution. (The basis of the right of recapture was disputed by the judges.) Strader v. Graham (1851 U.S. Supreme Court case) -- In that case two slave musicians were taken into Ohio and then later escaped from Kentucky to Canada. The slave-owner captured them back and it was argued in court that they were freed the minute they set foot on free soil. The Kentucky Court of Appeals decided in favor of the slave-owner (it was really a suit for damages by the slave-owner against the men who had abetted their escape.) The Supreme Court dismissed the case stating it lacked jurisdiction because the Northwest Ordinance did not apply to Ohio because it was superseded by state law, thus the case did not present a federal question. Taney's opinion in this case outlined the idea that once the slaves were returned to Kentucky, Kentucky law applied and Ohio law could not be considered. The Natural Law Argument: Judicial Questions: 1. Did Scott have the right to sue? 2. Was Scott free as a result of living in a state and territory where slavery was illegal? 3. Was it constitutional for the Congress to limit slavery in the territories? (Discuss the Missouri Compromise briefly.) Answer the 3 judicial questions based on "natural law" which is a "theory that some laws are basic and fundamental to human nature and are discoverable by human reason without reference to specific legislative enactments or judicial decisions." Many anti-slavery activists argued that slavery was against natural law. The Supreme Court used natural law principles ("the general principles of right and wrong") to condemn the international slave trade in the 1822 case of United States v. La Jeune Eugenie. U.S. v. La Jeune Eugenie Justice Joseph Story ruled in a circuit court case of 1822 that the African slave trade violated natural law and international law, and that the federal courts had the authority to confiscate ships employed in that trade. Story’s decision came in a case before the U.S. Circuit Court for Massachusetts, where he presided as the circuit justice. The crew of a U.S. revenue cutter captured the ship La Jeune Eugenie off the coast of West Africa and transported it to Boston on the suspicion that it was an American ship engaged in the slave trade. The revenue cutter’s crew claimed an award available under the law prohibiting the slave trade with Africa. The French consul in Boston and the French owners of the ship submitted claims for the return of the vessel. Story determined that La Jeune Eugenie was French-owned, but he refused to return the ship to those owners because they clearly had been involved in the slave trade. Story declared that the African slave trade violated natural law, international law, and the enacted laws of almost every nation in Europe as well as those of the United States. Unless the African slave trade were specifically protected by a nation’s laws, the federal courts had the authority to hear cases involving foreign citizens who participated in the trade and to order the confiscation of property used in the trade. Story agreed to President Monroe’s request for delivery of La Jeune Eugenie to the French government so that the courts of that nation could examine the owners’ involvement in the slave trade. http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/tu_amistad_questions.html Dred Scott v. Sandford Key Excerpts from the Dissenting Opinion Justice McLean wrote the dissenting opinion. . . . He [Scott] is averred to have had a negro ancestry, but this does not show that he is not a citizen of Missouri, within the meaning of the act of Congress authorizing him to sue in the Circuit Court. It has never been held necessary, to constitute a citizen within the act, that he should have the qualifications of an elector. Females and minors may sue in the Federal courts, and so may any individual who has a permanent domicile in the State under whose laws his rights are protected, and to which he owes allegiance. Being born under our Constitution and laws, no naturalization is required, as one of foreign birth, to make him a citizen. The most general and appropriate definition of the term citizen is "a freeman." Being a freeman, and having his domicile in a State different from that of the defendant, he is a citizen within the act of Congress, and the courts of the Union are open to him. In the discussion of the power of Congress to govern a Territory, in the case of the Atlantic Insurance Company v. Canter, (1 Peters, 511; 7 Curtis, 685,) Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the court, said, " . . . the power of governing a Territory belonging to the United States, which has not, by becoming a State, acquired the means of self-government, may result necessarily from the fact that it is not within the jurisdiction of any particular State, and is within the power and jurisdiction of the United States. The right to govern may be the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire territory; whichever may be the source whence the power is derived, the possession of it is unquestioned." If Congress may establish a Territorial Government in the exercise of its discretion, it is a clear principle that a court cannot control that discretion. This being the case, I do not see on what ground the act [Missouri Compromise] is held [by the Supreme Court majority's opinion in the Scott case] to be void. It did not purport to forfeit property, or take it for public purposes. It only prohibited slavery; in doing which, it followed the ordinance of 1787. Now, if a slave abscond, he may be reclaimed; but if he accompany his master into a State or Territory where slavery is prohibited, such slave cannot be said to have left the service of his master where his services were legalized. And if slavery be limited to the range of the territorial laws, how can the slave be coerced to serve in a State or Territory; not only without the authority of law, but against its express provisions? What gives the master the right to control the will of his slave? The local law, which exists in some form. But where there is no such law, can the master control the will of the slave by force? Where no slavery exists, the presumption, without regard to color, is in favor of freedom. Under such a jurisdiction, may the colored man be levied on as the property of his master by a creditor? On the decease of the master, does the slave descend to his heirs as property? Can the master sell him? Any one or all of these acts may be done to the slave, where he is legally held to service. But where the law does not confer this power, it cannot be exercised. . . . Does the master carry with him the law of the State from which he removes into the Territory? and does that enable him to coerce his slave in the Territory? Let us test this theory. If this may be done by a master from one slave State, it may be done by a master from every other slave State. This right is supposed to be connected with the person of the master, by virtue of the local law. Is it transferable? May it be negotiated, as a promissory note or bill of exchange? If it be assigned to a man from a free State, may he coerce the slave by virtue of it? What shall this thing be denominated? Is it personal or real property? Or is it an indefinable fragment of sovereignty, which every person carries with him from his late domicile? One thing is certain, that its origin has been very recent, and it is unknown to the laws of any civilized country. . . . Questions to Consider 1. On what key points does Justice McLean disagree with Chief Justice Taney? 2. What examples does Justice McLean use to demonstrate that Scott has the right to sue in court? 3. In his decision, Chief Justice Taney declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. How does Justice McLean deal with this argument in his dissent? Dred Scott v. Sandford Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion The decision was 7 to 2. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the opinion of the Court. . . . Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution. We think they [people of African ancestry] are not [citizens], and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. . . . [T]he legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased...to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State. The act of Congress, upon which the plaintiff relies, declares that slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall be forever prohibited in all that part of the territory ceded by France, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, and not included within the limits of Missouri. And the difficulty which meets us at the threshold of this part of the inquiry is, whether Congress was authorized to pass this law under any of the powers granted to it by the Constitution; for if the authority is not given by that instrument, it is the duty of this court to declare it void and inoperative, and Ms. Annicelli AP Government Judicial Activism in Dred Scott and Today After reviewing the material you must write a 3-5 paragraph essay answering the following question: Do you believe that judicial activism is a positive or negative for the U.S. government? In your answer you must include:  Definition of judicial activism (in your own words)  details from the Dred Scott v. Sandford  1-2 Contemporary decisions   Bibliography Bush, George W. "The Second Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate." Washington University, St. Louis, MO. 8 October 2004. 26 August 2011 (Street Law Landmark Cases: Background Summary): http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html Dirst, Tara. Abraham Lincoln Lesson. 2006. 25 August 2011 <http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/teachers/law-dredscott.html>. Finkelmen, Paul. Dred Scott v. Sandford: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin, 1997. Morrow. Conservative Judicial Activism. Miami Herald, Miami. Street Law Landmark Cases: Background Summary. 25 August 2011 <http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/539/Background_Summary__Questions_>. Street Law Landmark Cases: Key Excerpts of Dissenting Opinion 25 August 2011 < http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/547/Key_Excerpts_from_the_Dissenting_Opinion_>. Street Law Landmark Cases: Key Excerpts of Majority Opinion. 25 August 2011 < http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/545/Key_Excerpts_from_the_Majority_Opinion_>.