Question

i pass the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the constitution, and that the circuit court of the united states, for that reason, had no jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it. its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. — dred scott v. sandford, supreme court of the united states
which statement is the best summary of the passage?
dred scott was not a truly legalized citizen of the state of missouri.
because dred scott was not a citizen, no court could hear his case.
missouri’s judgment was in error, and the supreme court had to reverse the judgment.
the meaning of “citizen” in the us constitution was unclear, so the decision had to be reversed.

Explanation:

1. Analyze Option A: The passage focuses on the court's jurisdiction due to Dred Scott's non - citizenship, not just his citizenship status in Missouri. So this is not the best summary.
2. Analyze Option B: The passage states that since Dred Scott is not a citizen (in the Constitutional sense), the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction and thus can't give a judgment, leading to the dismissal of the suit. This matches the main idea of the passage.
3. Analyze Option C: The passage says the Missouri court's judgment is being reversed because of lack of jurisdiction (due to non - citizenship), not that Missouri's judgment was in error in a general sense. So this is incorrect.
4. Analyze Option D: The passage doesn't say the meaning of "citizen" in the Constitution is unclear. It states that Dred Scott is not a citizen as per the Constitutional meaning. So this is incorrect.

Answer:

B. Because Dred Scott was not a citizen, no court could hear his case.