In Dred Scott v. Sandford, what did the Supreme Court determine about enslaved people?

In the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court ruled that enslaved individuals could not sue in federal court, establishing a significant precedent regarding the legal status of enslaved people. The Court's decision stemmed from the view that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, were not considered citizens under the United States Constitution at that time. As a result, they lacked the legal standing necessary to bring a lawsuit in federal court.

This ruling was a crucial moment in U.S. history because it reinforced the systemic injustices faced by African Americans and highlighted the limitations of the rights afforded to them under the law. The decision was widely criticized and contributed to tensions leading up to the Civil War, as it denied not only legal recourse but also fundamentally questioned the humanity and legal rights of enslaved individuals.

While the other options suggest notions of rights and protections that were not afforded to enslaved people, they do not accurately reflect the legal principles established by the Dred Scott decision. Thus, the determination that enslaved individuals could not sue in federal court is the core takeaway from this pivotal case.