Question

read the passage from the opinion of the court in dred scott v. sandford, written by justice taney. upon 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. what claim does taney make in this passage? ∘ as a citizen of missouri, sandford can pursue a case against scott. ∘ the missouri circuit court does not have jurisdiction in the case against sanford. ∘ scott should pursue his case against sanford in a state other than missouri. ∘ scott is a citizen of the united states, but not of the state of missouri.

Explanation:

The passage states that the plaintiff (Scott) is not a citizen of Missouri as defined by the Constitution, meaning the U.S. Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over the case. This leads to the conclusion that the Missouri circuit court (and the federal court here) had no jurisdiction to rule on the case against Sanford. The other options contradict the text: Sanford is the defendant, Scott cannot pursue the case due to lack of jurisdiction, and Scott is not deemed a citizen of the U.S. or Missouri under this ruling.

Answer:

The Missouri circuit court does not have jurisdiction in the case against Sanford.