}

DRED SCOTT v. SANFORD

Dred Scott was a person who was enslaved in Missouri. Between 1833 and 1843, he lived in
Illinois, which was a state where slavery was not allowed, and in the Louisiana Territory, where
slavery was also forbidden by a law called the Missouri Compromise of 1820. When he
returned to Missouri, Scott went to court to ask for his freedom. He said that because he had
lived in a place where slavery was not allowed, he should be considered a free person.
Unfortunately, he lost the case in the Missouri court. So, he decided to bring a new case to a
federal court. In this case, Scott's owner argued that no person of African descent, like Scott,
could be a citizen according to Article III of the Constitution.
The majority opinion said that a person of African descent, whose ancestors were brought to the
U.S. as slaves, couldn't be considered an American citizen. This meant they couldn't bring a
lawsuit in federal court. Because of this, Chief Justice Taney dismissed the case on procedural
grounds, saying the court didn't have the authority to hear it.

Taney also said that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, a law that restricted slavery in certain
territories, was against the Constitution. According to him, Congress couldn't pass laws to free
slaves in federal territories. Taney respected the decision of the Missouri courts, which had
ruled that moving to a free state didn't make Dred Scott free. He also stated that slaves were
considered property under the Fifth Amendment, and any law taking away a slave owner's
property was unconstitutional.

In disagreement, Benjamin Robbins Curtis criticized Taney for talking about the case's
substance when the court had no jurisdiction. Curtis argued that rejecting the Missouri
Compromise wasn't needed to decide the case, and he doubted Taney's belief that the Founders
were against anti-slavery laws.

John McLean supported Curtis, saying the majority shouldn't have discussed the case's
substance but focused on procedure. He also argued that people of African descent could be
citizens, pointing out that they already had the right to vote in five states.
PLESSY v. FERGUSON

Louisiana made a law called the Separate Car Act, which said that black and white people had
to use different railway cars. In 1892, Homer Plessy, who was mostly Caucasian, agreed to
challenge this law. A group called the Committee of Citizens asked him to sit in the "whites
only" car of a train in Louisiana, even though he was considered black under the state's law.

The train company agreed because it thought the law was expensive. When Plessy was told to
leave the whites-only car, he refused and got arrested. In court, Plessy's lawyers argued that the
Separate Car Act went against the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, the judge
said that Louisiana could enforce the law within its borders, and Plessy was found guilty.

The Court decided that the state law was okay. Justice Henry Billings Brown, who wrote the
opinion, said that the 14th Amendment wanted equal treatment for all races, but separate
treatment didn't mean black people were inferior. Basically, the Court said that segregation
itself wasn't illegal discrimination.

In disagreement, John Marshall Harlan argued that the Constitution treated everyone the same,
regardless of color, and the United States shouldn't have a class system. He believed that all
citizens should have equal rights.
BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION

This case involved combining legal issues from different places like Kansas, South Carolina,
Virginia, Delaware, and Washington D.C. All these cases were about segregating public schools
based on race. In each situation, African American students were not allowed to attend certain
public schools because of laws that allowed racial segregation in education. They argued that
this segregation went against the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which
ensures equal rights.

However, in the lower courts, the students didn't get the help they wanted because of a previous
case, Plessy v. Ferguson. This case said that it was okay to have racially separated public
facilities as long as the facilities for black and white people were equal. This idea was called the
"separate but equal" doctrine.

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, made a decision saying that having
separate but equal facilities for different races, especially in education, is not fair. This goes
against the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is meant to ensure
equal rights.

The Court explained that when public education is segregated based on race, it makes African
American children feel inferior. This feeling has a really bad impact on their education and
personal growth. Chief Justice Warren used information from social science studies more than
past court decisions to support this idea. The decision was written in a way that was easy for
regular people to understand because Warren believed it was important for all Americans to
grasp its reasoning.
GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT

Clarence Earl Gideon was accused of breaking and entering in Florida and had to go to court.
When he got to court and didn't have a lawyer, Gideon asked the court to appoint one for him.
But, according to Florida state law, only people facing the death penalty could get a court-
appointed attorney if they couldn't afford one. So, the court didn't give Gideon a lawyer, and he
had to defend himself in the trial. He was found guilty and got a five-year prison sentence.

After that, Gideon filed a petition called habeas corpus in the Florida Supreme Court. In simple
terms, he argued that not having a lawyer in court went against his constitutional right to be
represented by counsel. Unfortunately, the Florida Supreme Court didn't agree and denied
Gideon relief through habeas corpus.

The Sixth Amendment promises the right to have a lawyer's help for people accused of crimes,
and this right also applies to those in state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a decision written by Justice Hugo L. Black, the Court said it's okay for the Constitution to
require state courts to appoint lawyers for defendants who can't afford one. The Court explained
that the right to have a lawyer, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, is really important and
something the states must follow according to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Sixth
Amendment ensures that anyone accused of a crime has the right to a lawyer's assistance, and
courts must provide a lawyer if the person can't hire one, unless they willingly give up this right
in a smart and knowing way.

Justice Douglas agreed with the Court's opinion but added more details in a separate opinion
about how the Bill of Rights connects to the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justices Clark and Harlan also agreed but wrote their own separate opinions.