In a poignant gathering on Capitol Hill last week, two individuals with deep historical ties to one of the Supreme Court’s most infamous decisions convened as the nation grapples once more with questions of race, law, and American identity. Lynne Jackson, the great-great-granddaughter of Dred Scott, and Charlie Taney, the great-great-grandnephew of former Chief Justice Roger Taney, met at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church on June 30, just steps from the Supreme Court.
Their meeting comes as the Supreme Court recently issued a landmark 5-4 ruling affirming that almost all babies born on U.S. soil should count as citizens, a decision that echoes the 1857 Dred Scott case. That ruling, authored by Chief Justice Roger Taney, declared that enslaved people were not American citizens and infamously described Black people as “inferior” and “altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations.” Charlie Taney, whose family is proud of his ancestor’s other legal contributions, acknowledged the Dred Scott opinion as “commonly thought of as the single worst decision in the history of the court,” calling it “odious.”
The Dred Scott decision was a major catalyst for the Civil War, as noted by Lynne Jackson, who now leads a foundation in Missouri dedicated to honoring Scott’s fight for his rights. The 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, effectively overruled the 1857 decision, establishing birthright citizenship for virtually all individuals born in the United States. However, the issue resurfaced nearly 160 years later when President Trump attempted to limit birthright citizenship through an executive order upon his return to the White House in 2025.
In its recent ruling on the final day of its term, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, suggested that arguments from the Trump administration amounted to an attempt to rewrite history with little evidence. Roberts wrote, “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Despite the majority’s stance, three conservative justices dissented. Justice Clarence Thomas, for instance, argued that the 14th Amendment was specifically intended for freed slaves and their children, stating, “I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time.” Eric Wessan, the solicitor general of Iowa, who closely monitors the court’s activities, highlighted the deep divisions, telling an audience at the conservative Federalist Society that “There’s definitely deep disagreement on the court about the nature of the Constitution as it pertains to race.” Wessan emphasized the narrowness of the decision, noting it was a “5 to 4 decision” on the constitutional issue, where “One difference in vote would have yielded a difference in outcome on the Constitution.” He also observed that justices have been “shadowboxing” over whether colleagues selectively invoke race for partisan ends in cases involving voting and redistricting.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a separate opinion, underscored that the 14th Amendment’s purpose extended beyond merely overturning the Dred Scott ruling. She described the amendment as a national “reset,” not just “a mere spot treatment for the dark stain of slavery.” Charlie Taney welcomed the majority decision, which Justice Jackson believes should serve as the “death knell” for efforts to restrict citizenship.
However, the political debate surrounding birthright citizenship appears far from over, with President Trump and his congressional allies vowing to continue their efforts. Charlie Taney reflected on the potential long-term consequences, expressing hope that future generations won’t endure what he did: “I hope their grandchildren don’t go through what I went through,” he said, recalling having to “slide down on my seat when the Dred Scott case came up because my name was Taney.” He urged those seeking to eliminate birthright citizenship to consider “what they’ll do to their own family for the future.”
Nine years ago, Charlie Taney publicly apologized to Lynne Jackson, and since then, they have appeared together over a dozen times to discuss reconciliation. Jackson found forgiveness easy, explaining that the “R-word” she focuses on is “relationship,” not “race” or “racism.” She believes that by building relationships, progress can be made. Both Jackson and Taney now hope their unique bond can serve as a model for the rest of the country.
The birthright issue seemed to be settled for a century. But Wessan said it was a close call at the Supreme Court.
"Remember the R-word?" she asked. "Everybody thinks it's race or racism or something like that, and it's sincerely just the word 'relationship.' You start to build a relationship."
