First read and review the student context. Then together, as a class, read the following transcript excerpts from the Supreme Court case. Be sure to note for students that because this is a legal document, it will not flow as easily as a story. As you read with the class (students or yourself can be the readers), clarify terminology and be sure to be mindful of the impact of racist terms and ideology as referenced in the Teacher Tips.

Break students into partners to delve further into the document to respond to the discussion question:

• What adjectives and descriptive words stand out to you around how the Scott family was treated? Why do you think it was described that way and what might the impact have been?
• How is enslavement described in the document (i.e. “claimed to hold them” “imprisoned them” and “held him as a slave”)? Why do you think it was described that way and what might the impact have been?
• In reviewing evidence from the transcript and information you know about the Missouri Compromise and/or from the student context, what do you expect may be the outcome of this case?

Bring students back together to review their responses as a whole. Depending on which activity you will explore next you may want to consider sharing the following case overview at the conclusion of the activity or at the start of the next activity.

The landmark case of Dred Scott v. Sandford lasted eleven years before it was decided in 1857. In the ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. The Dred Scott decision stated that Congress had no authority to ban slavery in federal territories, meaning territories before they became states. This did not make slavery legal everywhere in the United States, but it did mean that slavery could legally expand into all U.S. territories, which alarmed many Northerners and intensified sectional tensions. Supreme Court Justice Taney wrote in his majority opinion that Mr. Scott was not a citizen, therefore he could not bring suit in any court. According to Taney, Scott was never free because enslaved people were considered personal property which could be brought across state lines without changing their enslaved status. The ruling therefore raised questions about the constitutional rights of free African Americans and whether the Missouri Compromise could limit the spread of slavery in the country.