This document summarizes several important Supreme Court cases related to slavery and civil rights in the US:
1) Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) ruled African Americans could not be citizens and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, further entrenching slavery and sparking tensions before the Civil War.
2) Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) established the "separate but equal" doctrine allowing racial segregation if facilities were equal, legitimizing Jim Crow laws for 58 years.
3) Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established Miranda rights requiring police inform suspects of their rights to remain silent and have an attorney present during interrogations to prevent self-incrimination from
2. Dred Scott v. Sandford
Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia
When Scott moved to Missouri (slave state), he was
bought by Dr. John Emerson
Moved to Illinois (free state), but moved back to Missouri
shortly before death
Missouri Compromise stated slavery was abolished
above 36th parallel
Scott was freed in Illinois but when moved to
Missouri, his status was questioned
3. Dred Scott v. Sandford
Dr. Emerson died and all possessions went to wife,
Irene
Scott asked widow if he could work to regain
freedom
Scott wasn’t given freedom under Irene Emerson
Scott sued under doctrine “once free, always free”
Irene Emerson left case to brother, John Sandford
Claimed Scott couldn’t sue because he was not a citizen
Case found its way to supreme court in 1857
4. Majority Opinion
“We think they [people of African ancestry] are… not
included… under the word “citizens” in the
Constitution”-Chief Justice Roger Taney
Believed that slaves were not free when entering a
“free state” because that would take away slave
owners’ 5th Amendment rights
Slaves were considered property
Opinion made Missouri Compromise void
5. Dissenting Opinion
Opinion was written and supported by Justices
Curtis and McLean
“He [Scott] is averred to have had a negro ancestry,
but this does not show that he is not a citizen of
Missouri”-Justice McLean
Believed Scott had right to be in court
Also did not agree with the actions of majority to
make Missouri Compromise void
“It did not… forfeit property or take property…. It only
prohibited slavery”
6. Long Term Effects
Justice Taney wanted to settle future disputes over
slavery, but instead acted as a catalyst to Civil War
Abolitionists were incredibly upset and southerners declared
them to be enemies of the Union
Southerners could saw law supported slavery
Case is considered by some to be the worst decision
the Supreme Court has ever made
Deemed African Americans as property instead of
people
There is still prejudice in the US today
7. Plessy v. Ferguson
Louisiana passed Separate Car Act in 1890
All transportation had to offer separate accommodations for
whites and non whites
Penalties included a $25 fine or up to 25 days in
county jail
A group of all black citizens joined a railroad
company
Homer Plessy was 1/8 black and bought a first class ticket
Sat in the white railroad car and was arrested
Plessy argued the Separate Car Act violated 13th and
14th Amendments
8. Majority Opinion
“It [the 14th Amendment] could not have been
intended to abolish distinctions based upon color
or… enforce… a commingling of the two races”Justice Henry Billings Brown
Majority decided equality does not mean there cannot be
distinctions
The majority of 7 to 2 justices ruled that social
prejudices could not be fixed by legislation
Supreme Court approved the idea of “separate but
equal”
9. Dissenting Opinion
“In the eye of the law, there is in this country no
superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens”-Justice
John Marshall Harlan
Both citizens and civil liberties should be blind to color
“What can more certainly arouse hate that state
enactments which proceed on the ground that
colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that
they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches
occupied by white citizens”
The majority opinion would only serve to stir up more anxiety
and hatred in the United States
10. Long Term Effects
The decision in Plessy v. Ferguson set a tone for the
interactions between the two races for 58 years
Justice Marshall predicted correctly; tensions were increased
Many said the “presence of segregation was the absence
of democracy”
It is true accommodations in the United States were
separate, but they were rarely equal
Jim Crow laws were enacted following the case separated races in
almost all public places in the south and sometimes in the north
The decision of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954
reversed the decision in 1896 to separate races
11. Miranda v. Arizona
A woman in Phoenix was kidnapped and raped
Identified Ernesto Miranda in a lineup
Miranda confessed to crime in interrogation but was
not told of 5th amendment rights beforehand
Convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years of prison
Case went to Arizona Supreme Court, then Supreme
Court along with 3 other cases
Vignera v. New York
Westover v. United States
California v. Steward
12. Majority Opinion
“The prosecution may not use statements… from
interrogation… unless it demonstrates the use of
procedure to secure the privilege against selfincrimination.” -Chief Justice Earl Warren
Did not want defendants to self-incriminate due to
intimidation and pressure in interrogation
If suspect wants to remain silent, questioning must stop
Justices decided circumstances where statements
were received did not meet constitutional standards
Ruled in favor of Miranda
13. Dissenting Opinion
“I believe the decision of the Court represents poor
constitutional law and entails harmful consequences
for the country at large.” – Justice Harlan
The four justices commented that the decision would
ultimately discourage confession
Believed the decision would also prove as an obstacle
for future investigations
14. Long Term Effects
The 5-4 decision to uphold these basic rights of a
suspect has completely changed police procedures
The “Miranda Rights” is the formal warning all
officers must give suspects in accordance with the
decision in 1966
Right to remain silent
Right to an attorney
Right to state appointed attorneys
Anything said can be used in a court of law
It is harder for defendants to claim intimidation or
unlawful interrogations