All of the following are true of the dred scott v. sandford except a. scott could only sue in state courts. b. living in a free state did not make a slave free. c. the missouri compromise was unconstitutional. d. slaves had no rights as a citizen.

The answer that is not true is A:  "Scott could only sue in state courts."

Whether Dred Scott, as a slave, had any legal right to sue in court was a matter that applied whether talking about state or federal courts.  When Scott's suit was rejected by a state of Missouri court, Scott and his supporters managed to bring the case into a federal court, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court.  Though the Supreme Court at the time ruled that Scott had no right to bring the suit because he was a slave and not a citizen (point D above), the case gave Chief Justice Roger Taney opportunity to make further statements regarding the slavery issue, including points B and C in your list above.

The answer would be option a , b, and c.