The Right to Interstate Travel Under the Fourteenth Amendment

The constitutional right to interstate travel is considered a fundamental right. But it is also an unenumerated right, meaning it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Instead, the Supreme Court established the right to travel based on its interpretation of several constitutional provisions.

If you’re facing legal issues related to your constitutional right to travel, contact a constitutional law attorney. They can help you understand your freedom of movement and protect your constitutional rights.

What Is the Right to Travel?

Supreme Court decisions on this topic break down the right to travel into three distinct ideas:

• Citizens have the right to move freely between states
• A citizen of one state visiting a state has the same privileges and immunities as someone who lives in that state
• Someone who has recently moved to a state has the same rights as those who have lived in the state for a longer period of time

The Court derived these protections primarily from the 14th Amendment. However, cases on interstate travel also often touch on Article IV. It is essential to note that these cases primarily concern interstate travel. This concept is distinct from intrastate travel, which means movement within a single state. Intrastate travel is governed by different state laws.

Where Does the Constitutional Right to Travel Come From?

It is easy to get tangled up when searching for the roots of the right to travel. Even the Supreme Court doesn’t point directly to its origin. In 1999, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in Saenz v. Roe:

“For the purposes of this case, we need not identify the source of the right to travel in the text of the Constitution. The right of ‘free ingress and regress to and from’ neighboring states, which was expressly mentioned in the text of the Articles of Confederation, may simply have been ‘conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created.”

Even though the Court doesn’t pinpoint one exact source, it points to several constitutional provisions working together. Article IV of the U.S. Constitution states, in part:

“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States…”

This means that state governments must treat all American citizens equally, whether they are visitors to the state or residents. The Fourteenth Amendment also addresses privileges and immunities, along with its guarantees of due process of law and equal protection under the law.

Essentially, the Supreme Court views the right to travel as essential to the “united” part of the United States.

The Fourteenth Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment encompasses a broad range of provisions. Congress passed it in 1866, after the Civil War, during the era known as Reconstruction. Most significantly, the amendment granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” This meant that people who were formerly enslaved were now citizens.

Other important sections of the Fourteenth Amendment include:

• The privileges and immunities clause
• The equal protection clause
• The due process clause
• The disqualification clause

Laws that hinder a person’s ability to travel between states are often analyzed under the privileges and immunities clause or the equal protection clause.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause

The Fourteenth Amendment established that everyone “born or naturalized” in the U.S. is a citizen of the United States and of the state where they live. The privileges and immunities clause states that:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…”

This aimed to put all citizens on equal footing and prevent states from discriminating against Black Americans. However, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases significantly narrowed its application. In that case, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s privileges and immunities clause only protects a person’s rights as a U.S. citizen. Privileges of state citizenship are protected only by Article IV.

The Equal Protection Clause

The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states:

“[No state shall] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Durational Residency Requirements

A durational residency requirement means a person must reside in a state for a specified period before they can exercise certain privileges. These waiting periods can range from months to years. For example, some states require you to live there for at least a year before becoming eligible for in-state tuition at public universities.

In Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), the Supreme Court held that durational residency requirements are invalid. This is unless the state can prove they are necessary to further a “compelling government interest.” This standard is known as “strict scrutiny.” The strict scrutiny standard is the highest level of review courts use when determining whether a law is constitutional.

Residency requirements can also impact the right to vote. In Dunn v. Blumstein (1972), the Supreme Court struck down a Tennessee law. It required a person to reside in the state for one year and in their current county for three months before they could register to vote. The Court found the law infringed on both the right to vote and the right to travel.

In Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County (1974), the Supreme Court invalidated Arizona laws. They required people to reside in a county for one year before receiving nonemergency medical care at public expense. The Court determined that medical services constitute basic necessities. Denying them to new residents while providing them to established residents effectively penalizes interstate travel.

Early Landmark Cases on the Right to Travel

One of the earliest Supreme Court cases to address the right to travel was Crandall v. Nevada (1867). In this landmark decision, the Court struck down a Nevada statute. This law imposed a one-dollar tax on every passenger leaving the state.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Miller emphasized that the “people of the United States constitute one nation”. He added that the citizens should have the right to move freely between states. The Court noted that if the State can impose a one-dollar tax on passengers, it can impose a one-thousand-dollar tax. It added that if one State can impose such a tax, so can other states. This can result in barriers to interstate movement. The tax can significantly burden all transportation of passengers, particularly when moving from one state to another.

The significance of Crandall established that states cannot impose financial obstacles that burden the exercise of constitutional rights. They cannot impose this burden, even if it appears minimal. As noted by Justice Miller, it was not the amount of tax but the right of the state to impose tax in such a manner. This case remains relevant in modern times, particularly in the context of interstate travel.

Another pivotal case, Edwards v. California (1941), addressed California’s statute during the Great Depression. This law made it a misdemeanor to knowingly bring or assist in the bringing into the state an indigent person. The Supreme Court unanimously struck down this law.

The majority opinion by Justice James Byrnes relied on the Commerce Clause. It held that transporting persons across state lines constitutes interstate commerce. This is subject to regulation by the federal government. However, four concurring justices preferred to ground the decision in the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice William O. Douglas wrote that the right of persons to travel from one state to another is in a more protected position in the Constitution. It is not the same as moving fruit, cattle, steel, or other goods across state lines.

Federal Protection of Interstate Travel Rights

The Supreme Court reaffirmed and expanded the right to travel in United States v. Guest (1966). The case involved six defendants accused of conspiring to prevent African American citizens near Athens, Georgia, from exercising their constitutional rights to travel between states.

Justice Potter Stewart, writing for a unanimous Court, declared that the constitutional right to move from one state to another is “fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union.” This means the Constitution protects your ability to pass and repass through state lines without interference.

Regulations on Driver’s Licenses

The constitutional right to travel has sparked debate about whether states can require driver’s licenses. Some individuals have claimed that the constitutional right to travel means states cannot require driver’s licenses. This applies to operating motor vehicles on public roads.

However, courts have consistently rejected this interpretation. While the Constitution protects the right to move freely between states, this does not mean operating a motor vehicle is exempt from reasonable safety regulations. States have the legal authority to regulate public highways for safety purposes. This power includes requiring driver’s licenses, vehicle registration, and insurance.

The Supreme Court addressed this distinction in Hendrick v. Maryland (1915). The case involved Maryland’s motor vehicle law, which required both vehicle registration and driver’s licensing. The Court upheld the law. It explained that when Congress hasn’t passed national legislation on a topic, states can create safety regulations for their highways. This includes requiring vehicle registration and driver’s licenses.

The key principle is that fundamental rights, including the right to travel, can be subject to reasonable regulations that serve legitimate government interests. Driver’s license requirements are considered reasonable safety measures. It constitutes an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states. It is essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens. It is not an impermissible burden on the right to travel.

For more detailed information about driver’s licenses and the right to travel, see our article on Driver’s Licenses and the Right to Travel.

Questions About Your Right to Travel? Consult a Constitutional Law Attorney

The right to travel is well established in the Constitution. However, certain situations can still raise complex legal questions. If you are facing issues related to your right to travel or have questions related to residency requirements or other restrictions on movement, consult with a constitutional law attorney. They can help explain your rights under both federal and state law.