As capitan_refugio pointed out to you about Dred Scott, and nolu chan posted the relevant text to you from the decision itself condemning the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850, the import of Dred Scott was what Lincoln and the freesoilers feared that it was, to-wit that federal law banning slavery from the Territories (including presumably the original Northwest Ordinance forbidding it in the Old Northwest, viz., Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.) would not stand up in court.
As I posted to capitan, however, the reach of the Supreme Court only went so far (remember Andrew Jackson's defiance of Chief Justice Marshall in the matter of his deportation of the Cherokees and other southeastern tribes and his taking of their territories for white settlement), and in the event, Dred Scott did not forestall Californian and Kansan freesoilers from using the Kansas Nebraska Act to forestall slavery in their territories and exclude slaveowners -- notwithstanding that the slaveowners had had their own convention in Kansas, the Lecompton convention, and tried to establish a territorial government of their own.
So my point to capitan and you is that, on the ground "where the rubber meets the road", Dred Scott didn't stand up, but freesoil sentiment carried the day. In fact, you can't point to a single State or territory where Dred Scott caused freesoilers to give way and accept bond slavery on their ground.
The Dred Scott decision (what ever it might have been), was issued in early 1857. The legislature of the New Mexico Territory (comprising the present-day states of Arizona and New Mexico), passed slave codes in 1859.
What do you think 'bleeding' Kansas was about?
Even Douglas, who championed 'popular sovereignity' went against Buchanan, his parties own President, over the pro-slavers attempting to steal the government of Kansas and make it a slave state.
The Dred Scott decision gave moral sanction to the Slavery moving anywhere in the nation as a fundamental right.
Moreover, it attacked the very core of anti-slavery by stating that the Declaration did not mean that all men were created equal,for if the signers had meant that they would not have allowed slavery.
The South intent was to have slavery considered moral and acceptable in every state in the Union.
So my point to capitan and you is that, on the ground "where the rubber meets the road", Dred Scott didn't stand up, but freesoil sentiment carried the day. In fact, you can't point to a single State or territory where Dred Scott caused freesoilers to give way and accept bond slavery on their ground.
It only did not stand up due to the armed resistence of anti-slavers, and the political resistence of Douglas and the Republican Party.
In fact, it was Douglas's dogged resistence against Buchanan and the pro-slavery party that led Lincoln to getting back into the political arena lest Douglas become the nominee for the Republicans.