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. which statement most accurately states the claim in this passage? citizens of missouri cannot sue in a court of the united states. dred scott cannot sue in court because he is not a citizen. sanford should not have won the previous case in circuit court. the constitution’s definition of citizenship does not include missouri.

Dred Scott cannot sue in court because he is not a citizen.

Dred Scott attempted to sue his master for his freedom because he had taken him across state lines from a slave state to a free state.  However, the Supreme Court decided that since Scott was an African American he was not a citizen, and only citizens of the US have the right to litigation.  Therefore, Scott should not have sued in the first place.

A is incorrect because the passage states that "...the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri..." meaning that citizens of Missouri could sue, but Scott was not considered one.

C is incorrect because Sanford did not win the case in previous circuit courts.

D is incorrect because the passage states that the plaintiff does not fit the Constitution's definition of citizenship, not the state of Missouri.

Hope this helps!!

this need to be done in 15 minutes kind of passed the 15 minutes by now sorry dude but i can list some of my thoughts down for you : (