According to Dred Scott's lawsuit, how had his rights been violated?

Question

In the text, you read this about the Dred Scott case:
Dred Scott had been enslaved for many years in Missouri. Later, he moved with his owner, who was an
army surgeon, to Illinois and then to the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was not allowed. After they
returned to Missouri, Scott's owner died. The owner's wife took ownership of Scott, and eventually
those rights transferred to her brother, John Sanford. Antislavery lawyers helped Scott to file a
lawsuit, a legal case brought to settle a dispute between people or groups. Scott's lawyers argued that,
because Scott had lived in a free territory, he had become a free man.
(1 point)
1 He was not allowed to talk to a lawyer to prepare for his case.
2 He was kept as a slave even though he lived in free territory.
3 He had been forced to move against his will to different places.
4 His ownership had been transferred without his agreement.

Answer 1

Dred Scott's lawsuit argued that he had been kept as a slave even though he lived in free territory. Therefore, the correct answer is:

2 He was kept as a slave even though he lived in free territory.