Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Dred Scott v. Sandford

Supreme Court of the United States · 1857 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureConstitutional LawPropertysubject matter jurisdictiondiversity jurisdictioncitizenshipplea in abatementwrit of error

Facts

Scott alleged he was a citizen of Missouri and Sandford a citizen of New York, and sued in federal court to establish the freedom of himself and his family. Sandford pleaded in abatement that Scott was not a citizen because he was a negro of African descent whose ancestors were imported and sold as slaves. Scott had been taken by his master from Missouri to Rock Island, Illinois, and then to Fort Snelling in territory north of 36°30′ where Congress had prohibited slavery; he later returned to Missouri and was sold to Sandford. Scott claimed that residence in Illinois and the federal territory made him and his family free and therefore citizens entitled to sue.

Issue

Whether Scott was a citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the United States Constitution so that the federal circuit court had diversity jurisdiction. If jurisdiction existed, whether Scott became free by residence in Illinois or in federal territory north of 36°30′, and whether Congress had power to prohibit slavery in that territory.

Rule

Federal courts may act only when jurisdiction affirmatively appears on the record, and objections to subject matter jurisdiction cannot be created or cured by consent or waiver. Under the Constitution, persons descended from Africans imported into this country and sold as slaves were not included within the term "citizens" and therefore could not sue as citizens in federal court; additionally, Congress had no constitutional power to prohibit a citizen from holding slave property in federal territory acquired from France, and a slave's status after return to Missouri depended on Missouri law.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lena Ortiz sued Gavin Pike in federal court in Denver, alleging diversity because she was a citizen of Colorado and he was a citizen of Nevada. Gavin filed a plea in abatement asserting that Lena was not in fact a citizen of Colorado, and Lena demurred; the court overruled the plea, Gavin then answered on the merits, won at trial, and Lena appealed.

On appeal, may the court review the earlier jurisdictional ruling even though Gavin later litigated the merits?

Explanation. Under the majority's rule, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and jurisdiction must affirmatively appear on the record. A challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is not waived by consent or by pleading over after an adverse ruling. On writ of error or appeal from a federal trial court, the whole record is before the appellate court, so it may review the plea in abatement and reverse if jurisdiction was lacking.