Heirs of 'odious' 167-year-old Supreme Court ruling see modern parallels

Charlie Taney, the great-great-grandnephew of the man who wrote the Dred Scott opinion, and Lynne Jackson, Scott's great-great-granddaughter, speak at an event at St. Mark's Episcopal Church on Capitol Hill on June 30. Carrie Johnson/NPR hide caption

Two people with ties to a fraught history gathered last week in the nation's capital.

What binds them is a Supreme Court case from 1857, when a man named Dred Scott sued for his freedom.

Lynne Jackson is Scott's great-great-granddaughter. Charlie Taney is the great-great-grandnephew of former Chief Justice Roger Taney, the man who wrote the infamous Dred Scott opinion that helped provoke the Civil War.

The pair of descendants came together at St. Mark's Episcopal Church, just steps away from the Supreme Court, at a time when the country and the court are once again considering the role race plays in the law and what it means to be an American.

Politics

Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship on constitutional grounds

Charlie Taney said he and his family struggled with the legacy of their ancestor, who wrote in the opinion that enslaved people are not American citizens.

"He actually participated in a lot of important law … and our family's proud of that," Taney said. "But unfortunately he also authored what is commonly thought of as the single worst decision in the history of the court. It's been called odious."

Taney cringed as he quoted from that decision, which called Black people "inferior" and "altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations."

The 14th Amendment adopted after the Civil War essentially overruled the Dred Scott decision and affirmed virtually all babies born here are Americans. The question surfaced again, nearly 160 years later, when President Trump tried to limit birthright citizenship with an executive order when he returned to the White House in 2025.

Politics

As birthright citizenship goes to Supreme Court, here's how Americans feel about it

Tensions over race and history are familiar for Lynne Jackson, who now runs a foundation in Missouri to honor Dred Scott and his effort to vindicate his rights.

"This was a major catalyst for the Civil War," she said.

Opinion says administration tried to rewrite history

In a landmark ruling on the final day of its term last week, the Supreme Court said almost all babies born on U.S. soil should count as citizens. In his majority opinion , Chief Justice John Roberts suggested arguments by the Trump administration amounted to an attempt to rewrite history, with little evidence to the contrary.

"Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community," Roberts wrote. "The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to 'every free-born person in this land.' We keep that promise today."

But three conservative justices dissented, including Clarence Thomas, who wrote that the 14th Amendment was intended to apply to freed slaves and their children. "I am not sure that today's opinion will stand the test of time," Thomas wrote.

Law

Who is an American? The Supreme Court will decide

Eric Wessan, the solicitor general of Iowa, closely follows the work of the court.

"There's definitely deep disagreement on the court about the nature of the Constitution as it pertains to race," Wessan told an audience assembled by the conservative Federalist Society last week.

The birthright issue seemed to be settled for a century. But Wessan said it was a close call at the Supreme Court.

"On the constitutional issue, it was a 5 to 4 decision," he said. "One difference in vote would have yielded a difference in outcome on the Constitution."

Wessan said the justices have been "shadowboxing" this year over whether their colleagues invoke race selectively, to achieve partisan ends, in cases that involve voting and redistricting.

Efforts to limit citizenship

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a separate opinion to emphasize that the 14th Amendment did far more than overturn the Dred Scott ruling. She wrote that amendment was meant as a reset for the nation, "not a mere spot treatment for the dark stain of slavery."

Charlie Taney welcomed the majority decision, which Justice Jackson said should mark the "death knell" for efforts to limit citizenship.

But it's not at all clear the issue has left the political stage. President Trump and his allies in Congress say they're not giving up.

Immigration

Inside the coordinated strategy to radically reshape U.S. immigration

Taney said he wonders about the aftereffects.

"You know, I hope their grandchildren don't go through what I went through," he said. "[Having] to slide down on my seat when the Dred Scott case came up because my name was Taney. So the people that would like to be part of getting rid of your birthright citizenship, they might want to keep that in mind, what they'll do to their own family for the future."

Nine years ago, Taney publicly apologized to Lynne Jackson. They've appeared together more than a dozen times since then to talk about the process of reconciliation.

Jackson said for her, forgiveness was easy.

"Remember the R-word?" she asked. "Everybody thinks it's race or racism or something like that, and it's sincerely just the word 'relationship.' You start to build a relationship."

Now, Jackson and Taney hope their relationship can be a model for the rest of the country.

A previous version of this story's headline incorrectly said the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision was a 167-year-old ruling. It is, in fact, 169 years old.