jura personarum

Dred Scott, along with his wife Harriet and their two children Eliza and Lizzie, was held as a slave by the defendant John F. A. Sandford in the State of Missouri. Scott initiated an action in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri asserting his and his family's right to freedom. The declaration averred that Scott was a citizen of Missouri and the defendant a citizen of New York to establish diversity jurisdiction. The defendant responded with a plea in abatement asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction because Scott was not a citizen of Missouri. Scott was a negro of African descent whose ancestors were of pure African blood and had been brought into the country and sold as slaves. Scott demurred to this plea. The Circuit Court overruled the plea and required the defendant to answer over. The defendant then filed pleas in bar. After a trial on the merits the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, leading to judgment for him. Scott then prosecuted a writ of error to the Supreme Court. The underlying facts showed that Scott had been the slave of Dr. Emerson, a surgeon in the United States Army. In 1834 Emerson took Scott from Missouri to Rock Island in Illinois, where he held him as a slave until 1836. Emerson then removed Scott to Fort Snelling in the Territory of Upper Louisiana north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, holding him there until 1838. Harriet, originally the slave of Major Taliaferro, was also brought to Fort Snelling and sold to Emerson. Scott and Harriet were married at Fort Snelling in 1836 with Emerson's consent, and their children were born there or during the return journey. In 1838 Emerson brought the family back to Missouri, where they resided until Emerson sold them to Sandford. The case reached the Supreme Court after two arguments. The Court ordered reargument on some of the points due to differences of opinion among the justices and the importance of the questions involved.

In 1965 Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 4(e) provided that no person who had successfully completed the sixth grade in a public school or accredited private school in Puerto Rico where the language of instruction was other than English could be denied the right to vote in any election because of inability to read or write English. At the same time New York maintained an English literacy requirement under Article II section 1 of its constitution and sections 150 and 168 of its Election Law. The requirement obliged persons who became entitled to vote after January 1, 1922 to demonstrate the ability to read and write English through tests administered by school authorities. A substantial number of New York City residents who had migrated from Puerto Rico had completed sixth grade in Spanish-language schools on the island and therefore could not satisfy New York's requirement even though they were otherwise qualified to vote. The Attorney General of the United States filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the State of New York and its election officials. The complaint sought a judgment declaring section 4(e) a proper exercise of congressional power and enjoining enforcement of the New York literacy test against persons educated in Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico intervened as a plaintiff. Registered voters in New York City who opposed section 4(e) commenced a separate action under section 14(b) of the Act. That separate action sought a declaration that the provision was invalid and an injunction against its enforcement or compliance. New York admitted the factual allegations but denied that section 4(e) was constitutional. A three-judge district court held section 4(e) unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the Equal Protection Clause and usurped powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction on direct appeal from that judgment.