Dred Scott Decision Demonstrates Supreme Court Capture by Slave Power Through Political Collusion

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivers the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, ruling that African Americans “are not and could not be citizens” of the United States and therefore have no standing to sue in federal court, and that Congress lacks authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories, declaring the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. The decision, filling over 200 pages, holds that enslaved people are property rather than persons with rights, and that even free Black Americans cannot expect protection from federal government or courts. The Taney Court’s pro-slavery composition—seven of nine justices appointed by pro-slavery presidents, five from slave-holding families—produces a decision widely recognized as the Supreme Court’s worst ruling ever, described by modern scholars as “infamous,” “an abomination,” “judicial review at its worst,” and a “self-inflicted wound that almost destroyed the Supreme Court.”

The decision’s corruption extends beyond its pro-slavery substance to the political manipulation surrounding it. Historians discovered that President-elect James Buchanan wrote to Supreme Court Associate Justice John Catron before the ruling to ask whether the case would be decided before his March 1857 inauguration, hoping the decision would remove slavery from political debate. Buchanan then successfully pressured Associate Justice Robert Cooper Grier, a fellow Pennsylvanian and Northerner, to join the Southern majority to prevent the appearance that the decision was made along sectional lines. According to historian Paul Finkelman, “Buchanan already knew what the Court was going to decide” because “Justice Grier, who, like Buchanan, was from Pennsylvania, had kept the President-elect fully informed about the progress of the case and the internal debates within the Court.” This coordination between the executive and judicial branches represents a major breach of separation of powers, regarded then and now as highly improper, transforming the Court into an instrument of pro-slavery political strategy.

Abraham Lincoln, in his famous 1858 “House Divided Speech,” speaks of the “dark and mysterious circumstances” leading to the decision and casts “particularly incriminating light on Taney” as chief justice and author of the most comprehensive opinion. The decision accelerates the nation toward civil war by declaring that slavery cannot be restricted in territories, effectively nationalizing the institution and eliminating any middle ground for compromise. The ruling is eventually overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments (abolishing slavery and establishing citizenship for all persons born in the United States), but its immediate effect is to demonstrate complete judicial capture by Slave Power. The Dred Scott decision exemplifies kakistocracy through multiple channels: a Court dominated by slaveholders ruling to protect slavery, direct political coordination between president and justices to manipulate case outcomes, and the subordination of constitutional principles and human rights to economic interests in maintaining human bondage, all while claiming constitutional authority for decisions shaped by political pressure and sectional allegiance.