Bad decisions by U.S. Supreme Court

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 30/07/2024 (746 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Born a slave in 1800, Dred Scott was about 30 years old when he ended up in St. Louis, Missouri with his master Peter Blow. Following Blow’s death two years later, Scott was purchased by Dr. John Emerson, an army surgeon, who took him to Illinois, a free state. Later, he also lived with Emerson at a fort in Wisconsin, then a territory, which also did not have slavery.

Scott could have made a claim for his freedom while in either Illinois or Wisconsin, yet he did not.

In the ensuing years, Scott married and he and his wife moved to Louisiana, a slave state. Emerson died in 1843 and Scott attempted to buy his and his wife’s freedom, but Emerson’s widow refused to consent.

Scott then took his case to court and sued Mrs. Emerson and her brother, John Sanford. The case, which eventually ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court, became known as Dred Scott v. Sandford (John Sanford’s name was incorrectly spelled in the official record).

The case hinged on whether or not Scott was a citizen. In 1857, in a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that Scott as a slave, was in fact not a citizen and had no right to sue. The decision, which to this day is regarded as one of the worst ever delivered by the court, stood until the abolition of slavery at the end of the Civil War and the passage of the 14th Amendment.

Just because the 14^th Amendment stipulated that the former slaves and their family members were citizens and entitled to equal protection of the law did not make it so in late 19^th century America.

Starting in 1877, southern states began passing segregation laws. An 1890 Louisiana law stipulated that there were to be “separate railway carriages for the white and colored races.” In all other respects, the separate cars were (supposed) to offer equal seats and services — which they did not.

In June 1892, Homer Plessy, a shoemaker, who was born between 1858 and 1863 to a French-speaking mixed-race family in Louisiana, purchased a train ticket in New Orleans for a short trip. He tried to sit in the “whites-only” car and then refused to move to the “colored” car when the conductor ordered him to do so. He was arrested and put in jail.

His lawyer argued that the state’s segregation law violated the 14^th Amendment, but Judge John Ferguson of the criminal district court ruled against him and affirmed the state’s right to regulate local transportation. The case known as Plessy v. Ferguson eventually came before the U.S. Supreme Court. In May 1896, in a 7 to 1 decision, the court ruled against Plessy and established the doctrine of “separate but equal.” That unjust verdict stood until it was overturned in the landmark 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

Since the Scott and Plessy decisions the court has made many other awful decisions. A month ago, the court truly lowered the bar, and hearkened back to those two terrible 19^th century rulings, with its controversial, if not absurd, 6-3 decision in Trump v. United States.

Writing for the conservative majority, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that Trump — and all presidents now and in the future — are immune from criminal prosecution for their “official” acts as president. A president’s “unofficial” criminal acts could be prosecuted, yet evidence based on “official” acts could not be used to bolster the case under consideration.

In an attempt to disarm his critics, Roberts insisted that the president is “not above the law,” and caustically dismissed the concerns raised by the liberal minority as “fear mongering.” Yet, the decision could indeed have grave consequences, especially with someone such as Donald Trump — should he actually regain the presidency in November — who does not believe the law or constitution applies to him.

As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the dissenting judge, wrote the ruling “declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can (under circumstances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself.”

Naturally Trump hailed the decision as a great victory and why not? Despite Roberts’s claim to the contrary, as president he literally could murder someone on New York City’s Fifth Avenue and then claim immunity based on the fact that the victim was an alleged terrorist. The same goes for taking bribes for pardons and all other types of corruption Trump is capable of; the list is endless.

In the immediate future, whether Trump wins the election or not, this ruling will make it difficult to prosecute him in both the classified documents (now embroiled in an appeal) and federal election interference cases.

Whatever transpires, the decision in Trump v. United States will tarnish what is left of the legacy of the Roberts court and I predict someday in the future will be nullified or overturned as the terrible Scott and Plessy decisions were.

Now & Then is a column in which historian Allan Levine puts the events of today in a historical context.