In East Lansing, Michigan, an 1842 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Prigg v. Pennsylvania, which overturned the kidnapping conviction of a white man who forced a Black family into slavery, remains influential in contemporary American legal systems, even 160 years after slavery’s abolition. This ruling is among many that continue to impact legal principles today and has been cited in approximately 274 other cases, according to the Citing Slavery Project led by Michigan State University law professor Justin Simard. This research underscores how deeply ingrained slavery-related legal precedents are within U.S. jurisprudence.
The enduring use of these precedents highlights a counterbalance to current political movements, especially those driven by the Trump administration and certain Republican-led states, aiming to minimize references to America’s racial history in educational settings. Simard expresses that attempts to obscure the historical influence of slavery only underscore the importance of acknowledging such influences. He believes that official legal documents serve as compelling evidence of slavery’s lasting impact on the legal system.
Most slavery-related legal precedents are rooted in the protection of property rights as established by the U.S. Constitution, drafted during a period when slavery significantly fueled the country’s economy. The Supreme Court reinforced the foundational role of slavery in America’s establishment by ruling against Pennsylvania’s anti-slavery law, which it viewed as an unconstitutional challenge to the federal Fugitive Slave Act. This decision favored Edward Prigg, who forcibly enslaved Margaret Morgan and her children. The court stated that slaveholders had full rights to their slaves as property across states.
Even post-1865, when the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, cases like Prigg have frequently been referenced, primarily concerning property law and federal versus state authority. Despite the abolition of slavery, these rulings continue to define many legal boundaries to this day, Simard explains. Leonard Mungo, a civil rights attorney from Michigan, notes the problematic roots of these precedents and their implications on modern civil rights lawsuits, arguing that many courts still fail to recognize violations in cases of employment discrimination and beyond.
Slavery-related legal precedents have influenced various cases, even in situations involving white individuals. Prigg was cited in a 1989 Supreme Court decision related to a white football coach’s lawsuit, where he alleged racial discrimination after being reassigned from a predominantly Black high school. In some instances, these historical precedents are used to argue for civil rights. For instance, in Iowa, dissenting justices in a 2016 Supreme Court case emphasized rights to legal counsel based on historical applications of the Fugitive Slave Act in the state’s constitution.
Simard’s research began during his dissertation work, revealing that the citation of slave cases by northern judges in the 19th century was far more widespread and contemporary than expected. His findings indicated over 12,000 slavery-related rulings, which were regularly referenced in subsequent legal decisions. Many in the legal profession remain unaware of these origins or overlook the significance of the cases involving enslaved people as property, treating them as standard legal references.
To address these concerns, Simard’s team advocated for changes in legal citation standards, proposing notations like “enslaved party” to acknowledge the historical context of these cases. He believes that outright removal of these cases is impractical, advocating instead for a mindful and critical approach from lawyers and judges when referencing these rulings.
Agreeing with Simard, Dylan Penningroth, a professor at the University of California-Berkeley, suggests that reducing reliance on these cases could diminish their influence. Michigan Appeals Court Judge Adrienne Young emphasizes the importance of acknowledging this history. She stresses that ignoring the painful past perpetuates harm and underscores the necessity of confronting the historical roots of these legal precedents.
