In recent years, many have recognized that US Supreme Court decisions, including those related to abortion, positive actions and presidential immunity, involve bias, politicization and misuse of law, history, and precedents. Such decisions are often considered to be the last word on a particular issue, but that is not always the case. In fact, state courts have a history of moving away from the Supreme Court decisions.
Famous or infamous to show this point – Dreadscott vs Sanford. Scott’s territory was enslaved to Missouri, but from 1833 to 1843 he was taken to Illinois and other free territories, and lived in other free territories. After attempting to purchase the freedom in 1846, Scott filed a lawsuit in Missouri Court, but lost. In 1853 he sued in federal court, claiming that living on a free territory meant he was free.
His slave argued that black Americans could not become citizens under the US Constitution. In 1857, Supreme Court Justice Roger Tunney wrote the opinions of the seven to two majority, siding along with Enthrabbar, and thought that black people, “who were imported to the United States and sold as slaves,” were not American citizens, even if they were free or enslaved. The majority ruled that Scott, the enslaved man, was dismissed for procedural reasons as he was not a citizen and not standing because he was unable to sue in federal court.
Despite this dismissal, the majority further determined that Missouri’s compromise in 1820, which banned slavery on certain US territories, was unconstitutional. The enslaved people were property, and the majority were inferred, and the law that took away the slavery of property was violated by the Fifth Amendment. Judge Samuel Nelson’s consent acknowledged the issue of the issue of enslaved people being transported to free areas, but noted that this was not decided in the case and that the majority had postponed it to Missouri Court, which denies free status.
Judge Benjamin Curtis and John McLean wrote important oppositions used by state courts and other agencies. Curtis’ dissent criticized Tanny’s claim that blacks are not American citizens referring to multiple national constitutions ratified before and after the US Constitution, indicating that free blacks are citizens. Five of the original 13 states allowed black people to vote and considered them citizens. He also said, “The free residents of each of these states are entitled to all privileges and immunity of the free citizens of some states.”
McLean called Tanny’s view “a more of a matter of taste than a matter of law.” References to the treaty with Mexico and admissions to Florida and Louisiana – the latter gave widespread citizenship to mixed race and Creole residents – he said, “We made citizens of all grades, combinations, and colours.”
MacLean and Curtis further argued that the court should not give an opinion on the legality of Missouri’s compromise after determining its lack of jurisdiction. Curtis said, “If the opinion of this court or a binding court is not binding, it will not be binding if it is expressed in a question that is not previously legal.” They also criticized Missouri’s compromise for being overturned by merit. Anti-slavery provisions are not prohibited by the Constitution, and enslaving people is not a “natural right” but an activity governed by law and subject to parliamentary regulations.
The state court is expected to pay tribute to the Supreme Court’s decision on the matter of federal law, but has issued several intentionally opposed rulings directly. Dreadscott.
For example, the Ohio Supreme Court is referred directly and indirectly. Dreadscott While it’s brought Andersonv. Poindexter The enslaved people were free the moment they entered Ohio with Enthraber’s consent. The majority of opinions and agreements explicitly dismissed Tanny’s opinion and instead relied on Curtis and MacLean’s opponents. In another agreement, Secretary Thomas Bartley agreed with the outcome but criticized him for ignoring his colleagues. Dreadscott opinion.
Shortly after the decision was made, the Maine Legislature declared a resolution. Dreadscott An extrajudicial opinion due to a lack of jurisdiction. The lawmakers also asked the state high court to give their opinions on whether free black people in Maine can vote. In support of the right to vote for free black men, the court cited the constitutions of many states – Dreadscott Opponents – and said, “Because of his colour, it is believed that the right to vote for a resident in the state has not been denied (Maine).”
and Lemmonv. New Yorkwas decided by the High Court of New York in 1860 and rejected. Dreadscott The opinion is that Jonathan and Juliet Lemon have freed eight people Jonathan and Juliet Lemon enslaved them on their way to Texas. New York state law provided for the release of enslaved people brought to New York during transportation. rely DreadscottLemons argued that the law was unconstitutional and took away property. The court held that New York had the right to determine the legal status of the people of the state, that the law did not violate interstate commerce or fugitive slavery laws, and that while state courts often postponed the laws of other states, New York intentionally chose not to respect laws relating to the transport of enslaved people, but that it did not respect laws relating to the transport of enslaved people. The consent also rejected and argued the view of the enslaved people as Tanny’s property. Dreadscott The Lemons case did not apply as it only concerns Missouri laws regulating people’s status.
A prominent opponent, written by Judge Thomas Clark, agreed with Tanny and raised concerns from anti-slavery groups. lemon It could be appealed to the US Supreme Court, which could force slavery to the north. Lemons transferred their rights to Virginia. Virginia was to appeal because it was seen as an attack on slavery and the ability to transport enslaved people. But before such appeals came true, a civil war began, and Virginia left the Union, focusing on protecting and protecting the institution of slavery in the Confederate Constitution.
State court response Dreadscott The decision shows that questions about the limitations of the U.S. Supreme Court’s authority have existed for centuries. Past experience suggests that if state courts view court decisions as extreme, narrowing down or disregard aspects of court decisions, they consider guidelines, but not requirements, suggesting that they will be able to take on their own power.
Marcelius Braxton is director of the Center for Social Change and Attribution at Penn State University and is an associate professor of philosophy and African studies.
Suggested Quote: Marcelius Braxton, How state courts were pushed back in the infamous US Supreme Court casesᴛᴛᴇcᴏᴜʀᴛrᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (July 23, 2025), https://statcourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-state-courts-pushed-back-infamous-uspreme-court case
