Dred Scott v. Sandford
1857 U.S. Supreme Court case on the citizenship of African-Americans
Why this is trending
Interest in “Dred Scott v. Sandford” spiked on Wikipedia on 2026-02-25.
Categorised under Sports, this article fits a familiar pattern. In the sports world, trending articles usually correspond to recent match results, draft picks, or athlete milestones.
GlyphSignal tracks these patterns daily, turning raw Wikipedia traffic data into a curated feed of what the world is curious about. Every spike tells a story.
Key Takeaways
- Sandford , 60 U.
- It de jure nationalized slavery, and thus played a crucial role in the events that led to the American Civil War four years later.
- " Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes called it the Court's "greatest self-inflicted wound".
- When his owners later brought him back to Missouri, Scott sued for his freedom and claimed that because he had been taken into "free" U.
- Scott sued first in Missouri state court, which ruled that he was still a slave under its law.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that held that the United States Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, and therefore they could not enjoy the rights and privileges the Constitution conferred upon American citizens. The decision is widely considered the worst in the Supreme Court's history, widely denounced for its overt racism, judicial activism, and poor legal reasoning. It de jure nationalized slavery, and thus played a crucial role in the events that led to the American Civil War four years later. Legal scholar Bernard Schwartz said that it "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions." Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes called it the Court's "greatest self-inflicted wound".
The decision involved the case of Dred Scott, an enslaved black man whose owners had taken him from Missouri, a slave-holding state, into Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was illegal. When his owners later brought him back to Missouri, Scott sued for his freedom and claimed that because he had been taken into "free" U.S. territory, he had automatically been freed and was legally no longer a slave. Scott sued first in Missouri state court, which ruled that he was still a slave under its law. He then sued in U.S. federal court, which ruled against him by deciding that it had to apply Missouri law to the case. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Content sourced from Wikipedia under CC BY-SA 4.0