Question

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

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.

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

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

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.

Answer 1

The first statement is not a correct summary.

Explanation: In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) the Supreme Court ruled the opposite — that an enslaved person did not become free by living in a free territory, that people of African descent (free or enslaved) were not U.S. citizens and could not sue in federal court, and that slaves were legally property protected from seizure (which led the Court to strike down the Missouri Compromise as beyond Congress’s power).