Question: Which Chief Justice who was born in 1777 delivered the majority opinion in the case 60 U.S. 393 in 1857 with a 7-2 decision?
Context: Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the due process requirement that a state give notice to an owner before selling his property to satisfy his unpaid taxes.  The Court ruled, 5-3, that after a mailed notice was returned unclaimed, a state was required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to take additional reasonable steps to notify the owner before the sale could proceed.  The Court's opinion was delivered by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, his fourth majority opinion after his confirmation to the Court in 2005 and his first to provoke any dissenting opinions. Manuel v. Joliet, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant may bring a claim under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution to challenge pretrial confinement.  In a 6-2 majority opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court stated that "the Fourth Amendment governs a claim for unlawful pretrial detention even beyond the start of legal process".  This decision reversed and remanded the judgment of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion.  Justice Thomas also joined a dissenting opinion by Justice Samuel Alito. Lewis v. Clarke, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8-0 that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply in a suit against a tribal employee in his individual capacity, and an immunity provision cannot extend tribal sovereign immunity to cases in which it would otherwise not apply.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the majority opinion.  Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg each wrote concurring opinions that both said that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply in suits arising from commercial activity off of tribal territory.  Justice Neil Gorsuch was not involved in the discussion or decision of this case. Brown v. Maryland, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.)  419 (1827), was a significant United States Supreme Court case which interpreted the Import-Export and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution to prohibit discriminatory taxation by states against imported items after importation, rather than only at the time of importation.  The state of Maryland passed a law requiring importers of foreign goods to obtain a license for selling their products.  Brown was charged under this law and appealed.  It was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court construed the Import-Export Clause.  Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the opinion of the court, ruling that Maryland's statute violated the import-export and commerce clauses and the federal law was supreme.  He alleged that the power of a state to tax goods did not apply if they remained in their "original package".  A license tax on the importer was essentially the same as a tax on an import itself.  Despite arguing the case for Maryland, future chief justice Roger Taney admitted that the case was correctly decided. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932), is a Supreme Court case in which the justices unanimously recognized the entrapment defense.  However, while the majority opinion by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes located the key to entrapment in the defendant's predisposition or lack thereof to commit the crime, Owen Josephus Roberts' concurring opinion proposed instead that it be rooted in an analysis of the conduct of the law enforcement agents making the arrest.  Although the Court has stuck with predisposition, the dispute has hung over entrapment jurisprudence ever since. Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in the public schools.  The Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma."  The Supreme Court declared the Arkansas statute unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  After this decision, some jurisdictions passed laws that required the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution was taught.  These were also ruled unconstitutional by the Court in the 1987 case "Edwards v. Aguillard". Roger Brooke Taney ( ; March 17, 1777 – October 12, 1864) was the fifth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, holding that office from 1836 until his death in 1864.  He delivered the majority opinion in "Dred Scott v. Sandford" (1857), that ruled, among other things, that African-Americans, having been considered inferior at the time the United States Constitution was drafted, were not part of the original community of citizens and, whether free or slave, could not be considered citizens of the United States, which created an uproar among abolitionists and the free states of the northern U.S.  He was the first Roman Catholic (and first non-Protestant) appointed both to a presidential cabinet, as Attorney General under President Andrew Jackson, as well as to the Court. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) , also known simply as the Dred Scott case, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law and constitutional law.  It held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves", whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court, and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States.  Dred Scott, an enslaved man of "the negro African race" who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom.  In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott's request.  The decision was only the second time that the Supreme Court had ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional. Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall. ) 2 (1866) , was a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled the application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional.  In this particular case the Court was unwilling to give President Abraham Lincoln's administration the power of military commission jurisdiction, part of the administration's controversial plan to deal with Union dissenters during the American Civil War.  Justice David Davis, who delivered the majority opinion, stated that "martial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and confined martial law to areas of "military operations, where war really prevails," and when it was a necessity to provide a substitute for a civil authority that had been overthrown.  Chief Justice Chase and three associate justices filed a separate opinion concurring with the majority in the judgment, but asserted that Congress had the power to authorize a military commission, although it had not done so in Milligan's case. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the standing of taxpayers to challenge state tax laws in federal court.  The Court unanimously ruled that state taxpayers did not have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers.  Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion (his fifth on the Court), which was joined by all of the justices except for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who concurred separately.
Answer: Roger B. Taney