Supreme Court Candidate Lazar Misstates History of Dred Scott Decision

A recent interview on a conservative talk show is receiving sharp criticism for what Maggie Daun, host of The Maggie Daun Show, describes as a surprising misunderstanding of one of the darkest chapters in American legal history. Conservative appeals court Judge Maria Lazar is a candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Daun explains Lazar told host Vicki McKenna, the Dred Scott decision — the 1857 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that denied citizenship and constitutional rights to Black Americans — was “overturned after decades of being wrong.”

But it’s not true.

---

Listen to the commentary starting at the half-way mark here:

[podcast src="https://civicmedia.us/shows/maggie-daun-show/2025/10/08/ballots-and-baseball-umpires-and-elections"]

The Dred Scott decision was never overturned by the Supreme Court. Its effects were nullified only after the Civil War through the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. It abolished slavery and guaranteed citizenship to all people born in the United States.

Legal scholars often cite Dred Scott as the worst decision in the Court’s history. Daun calls the ruling so infamous it helped propel the nation to war. And she says even first-year law students know it was not overturned by another case.

“This isn’t just a slip-up,” Daun explains. “It shows a deep lack of understanding about constitutional law and American history. And it’s the kind of understanding we should expect from anyone seeking a seat on our state’s highest court.”

Lazar’s remarks come at a time when the U.S. Supreme Court faces criticism for decisions expanding presidential immunity and narrowing civil rights protections. Daun says that context makes the misunderstanding even more alarming.

“When a judicial candidate confuses the Dred Scott ruling – a decision that declared human beings weren’t human — with something that was ‘fixed’ by the courts, it should stop us in our tracks,” Daun says. “If you can’t get this case right, what else are you getting wrong about the law — and about justice itself?”