Answer:
- Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconsitutional and foreclosed Congress from freeing slaves within Federal territories.
- Slaves were property under the Fifth Amendment, therefore, any law depriving a slave owner of that "property" was unconstitutional.
Step-by-step explanation:
The majority held that “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves,” whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore did not have standing to sue in federal court. Because the Court lacked jurisdiction, Taney dismissed the case on procedural grounds.
Taney further held that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional and foreclose Congress from freeing slaves within Federal territories. The opinion showed deference to the Missouri courts, which held that moving to a free state did not render Scott emancipated. Finally, Taney ruled that slaves were property under the Fifth Amendment, and that any law that would deprive a slave owner of that property was unconstitutional.