"Courts can widen political divisions instead of settling them." Examine with reference to the Dred Scott decision (1857).

In Dred Scott v. Sandford (6 March 1857), the U.S. Supreme Court tried to settle the slavery question with one judgment [1]. The case shows that a ruling which takes rights away from a group can make a dispute worse, not end it.

How Dred Scott widened the divide

• It closed the room for compromise: the Court held that Congress could not ban slavery in the territories. This struck down the Missouri Compromise, so legislators lost the middle ground they had used [1].
• It shut a whole class of people out of the Constitution: Chief Justice Roger Taney held that slaves were not citizens [2]. Once that was ruled, neither side could bargain, because what one side gained the other lost.
• It broke up national parties: the ruling weakened Douglas's popular sovereignty formula. The Democrats then split North–South over slavery in the territories, and four candidates ran in 1860.
• It produced a regional result: Lincoln won 180 electoral votes [3] with only about 40% of the popular vote and almost no Southern support [4]. Southern states began to secede, and the Civil War (1861–65) followed [4].
• War, not the law, reversed it: slavery ended across the country only with the 13th Amendment, ratified on 6 December 1865 [5].

Why rulings deepen divisions

• Courts decide moral and political questions before society has reached agreement on them.
• A ruling that takes rights away pushes the excluded group towards resistance.
• Courts cannot easily amend a constitutional ruling, so the only outlets left are elections or the streets.

The other side: courts can also settle disputes

• Brown v. Board (1954) reversed the racial exclusion that Dred Scott stood for, although Southern states resisted it at first.
• In India, Kesavananda Bharati (1973) set out the basic structure doctrine and eased the conflict between Parliament and the judiciary. Navtej Johar (2018) extended Article 14 and 21 rights to a minority that had been left out.

Dred Scott shows that the outcome depends on how a court rules: it widened the divide because it excluded people and closed off compromise. Courts should apply judicial restraint on political questions, keep a dialogue with the legislature, and read rights to include more people. Grounded in constitutional morality, the courts can then help bring people together.