Read the passage from the opinion of the court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, written by Justice Taney. Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution; and that the Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it. Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Which statement most accurately states the claim in this passage?
Answer
A
Citizens of Missouri cannot sue in a court of the United States.
B
Sanford should not have won the previous case in circuit court.
C
The Constitution’s definition of citizenship does not include Missouri.
D
Dred Scott cannot sue in court because he is not a citizen.
Explanation
Taney’s passage says Scott is not a citizen of Missouri in the constitutional sense used in the case. Because the court concluded that this meant the federal circuit court lacked jurisdiction, it ordered the case dismissed. Thus, the claim is that Dred Scott cannot bring this suit in that court because he is not a citizen; it does not say that Missouri is excluded from the Constitution or that Missouri citizens generally cannot sue in federal court.
AI-written and checked against the verified answer.