In United States v. Scott, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case regarding whether or not Dred Scott, an enslaved African American man living in Missouri at the time, was entitled to his freedom after having been taken by his owner into free states and territories. The court ruled that as a black person born into slavery he could not be considered a citizen under federal law and therefore had no standing to sue for his freedom in federal court. Furthermore, it held that Congress did not have authority under the Constitution to prohibit slavery in any territory of the United States. This decision further entrenched racial divisions within America and would eventually lead to civil war between North and South over issues related to slavery.

In United States v. Scott, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a slave who had escaped from his owner and lived in a free state for several years could be considered property under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The majority opinion held that Congress had authority to pass such legislation and that slaves were indeed property subject to their owners' control regardless of where they resided. Justice Curtis dissented, arguing that slavery is not recognized by any part of the Constitution except as it relates to representation in Congress; therefore, no law can make a person into property or take away rights already granted by other laws. He further argued that since states have exclusive jurisdiction over persons within their borders, federal legislation cannot override state laws protecting freedom for those living there. Finally, he concluded with an assertion that if slavery is allowed outside its constitutional limits then all citizens are at risk of having their rights taken away without due process or protection from cruel and unusual punishment.