why was the decision in the dred scott v. sandford (1857) supreme court case significant
Dred Scott v. Sandford Although Taney hoped that his ruling would settle the slavery question, the decision immediately spurred vehement dissent from anti-slavery elements in the North, and proved to be an indirect catalyst for the American Civil War. It was functionally superseded by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1868, which gave African Americans full citizenship.
Margaret Wolfe Hungerford Molly Bawn contains Hungerford's most famous idiom:
Morse v. Frederick Melinda Cupps Dickler, in her article "The Morse Quartet: Student Speech And The First Amendment" in the Loyola Law Review,[3] provided a survey of commentary that followed in the immediate aftermath of the case: Some commentators have suggested that Morse both demonstrated a division among the Justices on student speech rights[50] and continued Fraser's and Kuhlmeier's erosion of students' First Amendment rights.[51] She regards this suggestion as "not surprising" given the outcome of the decision, the plain language of the holding, and the dissenting Justices' charge that the opinion did "serious violence to the First Amendment".[52] She adds that other commentators have asserted that while Morse did not dramatically change the law regarding student speech, it failed to answer any of the questions left by the Tinker trilogy.[53] She notes that these questions—what First Amendment protection is owed to student speech, and how courts should analyze its censorship—are currently significant as schools struggle with the issues of discriminatory student speech or hate speech,[nb 6] and student speech threatening violence.[nb 7] Further, "such questions are always paramount because schools are the training grounds for our nation's citizens and future leaders."[3]
Dred Scott v. Sandford Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), also known as the Dred Scott case, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law and constitutional law. It held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves",[2][3] whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court;[4][5] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved man of "the negro African race"[3] who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7â€“2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott's request. The decision was only the second time that the Supreme Court had ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.[6]