# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion this case is an example of judicial restraint.I think its restraint because,The ruling declared that slaves were not protected by the Constitution and could never become citizens

# data[].attributes.body
The significance of this case is the Federal Court ruled that Scott was still a slave. They ruled that no African American could be a citizen and that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was in fact, unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.body
Both, Curtis and Mclean argued, that slaves were members of the nation and could not be denied the right to claim citizenship.

# data[].attributes.body
South Opinion : The South like it was their 5th amendment right and they were obligated to defend slavery.
North Opinion: A lot of Northern courts and politicians rejected Scott v. Sandford as binding because, people can become citizens of the United States.

The South felt that Congress had exceeded its authority in the Missouri Compromise because it had no power to abolish slavery in the other territories.

# data[].attributes.body
The defendant challenged the 1820 Missouri Compromise, because of this Scott was denied the right to freedom.

# data[].attributes.body
The Scotts argued that when a slave resides in a free state, freedom is entitled to him and cannot be revoked if he returns to a slave state. Also, they argued that people of African descent could be United States citizens.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court Case Questions and Answers

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court Case Questions and Answers

# data[].attributes.body
This  case presented three major issues/questions to the Supreme Court:
1. The first, whether Scott, or any Negro, was a citizen and had the right to even sue the Court.
2. The second, whether Scott's status as a slave was affected by his residence in a free territory.
3. And the third, whether Congress had the power to ban slavery in other territories.

Chief Justice Roger Taney answered these questions, by expressing that's felt that all people of African descent, free or enslaved, were not United States citizens and therefore had no right to sue in federal court. He also wrote that the Fifth Amendment protected slave owner rights because enslaved workers were their legal property. The decision also argued that the Missouri Compromise legislation was unconstitutional.This meant that Congress had no power to prevent the spread of slavery.

# data[].attributes.body
In November 1853, Scott filed a federal lawsuit with the United States Circuit Court for the District of Missouri. Sandford ruled against Scott, holding him and his family in slavery. In December 1854, Scott appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court. The trial began on February 11, 1856.

# data[].attributes.body
The disagreement was on whether the new states would be "free" states where slavery would be illegal, or whether they would be "slave" states like the ones already existing in the South.
Congress passed the "Missouri Compromise", which admitted Maine in the union as a free state and created Missouri as out of a portion of the Louisiana Purchase territory and admitted it as a slave state, but at the same time prohibited slavery in the area north of the Parallel 36'90, where most of the territory lay.
The legal effects of a slaveowner taking his slaves from Missouri into the free territory north of the 36°30′ north parallel, as well as the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise itself, eventually came to a head in the Dred Scott case.

# data[].attributes.body
Chief Justice:  Roger Taney
Associate Justice: John McLean,  James M. Wayne,
John Catron,  Peter V. Daniel, Samuel Nelson, Robert C. Grier
Benjamin R. Curtis , John A. Campbell