Edward Scott was a slave who had been freed by his master in 1799. In 1806, the Virginia legislature passed a law that required all former slaves to leave the state within one year or be re-enslaved. Edward Scott remained in Virginia and was arrested for violating this law. He then sued for his freedom on the grounds that he had already been legally emancipated before the passage of this new law and therefore should not have to comply with it. The Supreme Court ruled against him, finding that since slavery is legal under both federal and state laws, any emancipation must also come from those same sources of authority; thus, an individual's private act could not free them from their status as a slave under these laws. This decision set an important precedent which established that only governments can grant freedom to slaves through legislation or other official acts such as presidential pardons or military orders during wartime.

In the case of Edward Scott, Claimant, the dissenting opinion argued that Congress had no authority to pass a law granting freedom to slaves. The majority opinion held that Congress did have such power under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution and could therefore grant freedom to slaves. However, in dissent it was argued that this interpretation of Article I Section 8 was too broad and would allow for an unlimited expansion of Congressional powers which is not supported by any other part of the Constitution or its history. Furthermore, it was argued that if Congress were allowed such expansive powers then slavery would be abolished without due process as required by Amendment V. Therefore, while recognizing Congress' ability to legislate on matters related to slavery they should not be able extend their power beyond what is explicitly stated in both the text and intent of the Constitution itself.