In East Lansing, Michigan, a legal relic from 1842 remains influential in American jurisprudence, long after the abolition of slavery. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania, which overturned the kidnapping conviction of a white man who captured a Black family and forced them into slavery, is still being referenced in court cases across the United States, 160 years after the emancipation of enslaved people.
The Citing Slavery Project, overseen by law professor Justin Simard at Michigan State University, has documented 274 instances where Prigg v. Pennsylvania has been cited, amid over 7,000 citations of slavery-related legal precedents that continue to inform court decisions. The findings highlight the enduring influence of legal principles tied to human ownership, countering attempts by certain political entities to minimize discussions of America’s racial history in educational contexts.
Simard explained that these citations underscore the foundational role of slavery in American law. Most references to slavery precedents address the protection of property rights as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution—a document crafted by affluent property owners during an era when the economy heavily relied on enslaved labor. The Prigg ruling underscored the Constitution’s provisions, affirming the rights of slaveholders under federal law, which were considered vital to the nation’s founding.
Even after the 13th Amendment abolished slavery in 1865, Prigg has frequently been cited in property law cases and in determining the balance of power between state and federal governance. According to Simard, these references show how slavery’s legal precedents still pervade current jurisprudence. This influence concerns legal professionals like Michigan civil rights attorney Leonard Mungo, who sees it as undermining civil rights protections in modern rulings.
Slavery precedents have at times been used to support civil rights. For example, in a 2016 case, dissenting justices in Iowa cited the Fugitive Slave Act while arguing for the right to legal counsel for a man accused of DUI, invoking the historical right to counsel granted even to enslaved individuals. However, they were narrowly outvoted.
Simard’s exploration for his dissertation unearthed extensive usage of slave case precedents by northern judges in the 19th century, a revelation that continues to expand. His team has identified over 12,000 slavery rulings, yet many legal practitioners remain unaware or indifferent to the implications of these origins, treating them as standard law.
To address this, Simard’s team has pushed for legal citation guides to use explicit terms like “enslaved party” to acknowledge these cases appropriately. Simard emphasizes that rather than eradicating these cases, it’s crucial for legal professionals to thoughtfully consider their relevance and impact today.
Dylan Penningroth, a professor at UC Berkeley, concurs that while eliminating all these cases is impractical, their influence diminishes if legal practitioners cease depending on them. Michigan Appeals Court Judge Adrienne Young stresses the importance of recognizing this dark chapter in legal history to avoid perpetuating its impact.