Final answer:
In the controversial Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857, the Court ruled that black individuals, whether enslaved or free, could not be U.S. citizens and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, which allowed the spread of slavery to new territories.
Step-by-step explanation:
Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court Ruling
In the 1857 landmark case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court issued a divisive ruling that had major implications for the future of slavery in the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved African American, had sued for his freedom, asserting that he should be free after having lived in free territories. However, the Court's decision, delivered by Chief Justice Roger Taney, declared that black individuals could not be U.S. citizens and that Scott therefore had no standing to sue in a federal court.
Furthermore, the ruling asserted that the Missouri Compromise, which restricted slavery in certain territories, was unconstitutional because Congress did not have the authority to bar slavery in the territories. This meant that the federal government could not prohibit the expansion of slavery into the West. The decision essentially invalidated legislation that had previously tried to balance the interests of free and slave states and catalyzed tensions that would ultimately lead to the Civil War.
The Dred Scott decision was widely criticized and is often regarded as one of the Supreme Court's most egregious missteps. It played a part in the intensification of the national conflict over slavery and contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War by bolstering the position of Fire-Eaters, the radical southern secessionists.