Why does the court say that the petitioning party in this case had no right to sue for his freedom?

The correct answer is C) because he is “of the African race” with enslaved ancestors

The court said that the petitioning party. in this case. had no right to sue for his freedom because he is “of the African race” with enslaved ancestors and he is not considered an American citizen and therefore, had no right to sue in court.

We are referring to the case Dread Scott v. Sanford of 1857. A slave petitioned for his liberty in a court in St Louis Missouri, because he used to live in a segregated territory but his owner had moved to a free territory and then he should not be considered a slave.

In one excerpt of its decision, the Court established that: “a free black of the African race whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves is not a ‘citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.”

The other options of the question were, a) because he is too young, b) because he is from a different state, and c) because he is within his owner’s jurisdiction.

what is the question here?

this doesnt make any sense imao