Question

Which statement does not summarize the U.S. Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857?

Congress could clarify who were citizens in the U.S. but could not ban slavery in territories because it was a state's right.

Regardless if a man was free or a slave prior to the Civil War, he was not considered a U.S. citizen and therefore lacked any rights.

If an enslaved man was once living in a pro-slavery state then moved to a free territory, he would be able to gain his freedom and obtain rights based on the Fifth Amendment.

Since slaves were not citizens but instead were the "property" of the slave owners, Congress was rendered helpless in seizing their property.

Answer 1

The third statement is NOT a correct summary.

Dred Scott held that a person of African descent — free or enslaved — was not a U.S. citizen for purposes of suing in federal court, and that living in a free territory did not necessarily make an enslaved person free. The Court also ruled the federal government (Congress) could not prohibit slavery in the territories because slaves were treated as property protected by the Fifth Amendment — the opposite of saying the Fifth Amendment gave freedom.