Also known as: right to travel · interstate travel right
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A fundamental constitutional right that protects an individual's ability to move from one state to another and settle as a resident without facing penalties from the new state. The right prohibits durational residency requirements that condition basic welfare benefits on length of residence and thereby deter or punish interstate movement. When a state law burdens this right by discriminating against new residents in the distribution of subsistence benefits, strict scrutiny applies and fiscal preservation alone cannot supply a compelling justification.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Felix Franco relocated from one state to another seeking steady employment. Two months after arrival he applied for state-funded food assistance and met every eligibility criterion except the twelve-month continuous-residency rule. The agency denied the application to conserve funds. A court invalidated the requirement because it penalized the decision to migrate.
Francisco Frost moved into a new state with his family. Upon applying for cash assistance the state limited his monthly grant to the amount he would have received in his former state and imposed a one-year waiting period for full benefits. The limitation was struck down because it treated recent arrivals differently from longer-term residents solely on the basis of their recent migration.
Felipe Figueroa established residence in a new state and sought to register to vote in an upcoming federal election. Officials required a one-year waiting period before he could participate. The court held the waiting period unconstitutional because it burdened the freedom to migrate and settle without artificial barriers to fundamental political participation.
Frank Fisher and companions crossed state lines to attend a political gathering. State officers stopped and detained them solely because of their recent arrival and intended activities. The court found the interference violated the constitutional protection for interstate movement that undergirds national citizenship.
Forrest Falconer had recently moved into a neighborhood and was cited under a city ordinance that criminalized remaining in public without apparent purpose. Evidence showed the law was enforced primarily against recent arrivals. The court invalidated the ordinance because it effectively penalized the exercise of the right to relocate and reside freely within the state.
Flora Ford traveled to a new state and was denied service at a motel that refused out-of-state guests. The denial was challenged as an impermissible barrier to interstate movement. The court held that such discrimination against travelers violates the constitutional freedom to migrate and use facilities across state lines.
Strict scrutiny applies because the requirement burdens the fundamental right to interstate migration. The state must demonstrate that the classification is necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest. Protecting the treasury by discouraging entry of indigent persons is not a compelling interest.
Supporting sources
…or any person.” 278 U. S., at 122. The present ordinance is challenged on several grounds: that it interferes with a person’s right to travel; that it interferes with the right to migrate to and settle within a State; that it bars people who are uncongenial to the present residents; that it expresses the social preferences of the…
…first , because it establishes two classes of persons and discriminates against those who have recently exercised their right to travel to Iowa, thereby contravening the Court's holdings in Shapiro v. Thompson , 394 U. S. 618 (1969); Dunn v. Blumstein , 405 U. S. 330 (1972); and Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa…
…period provisions violate the Equal Protection Clause by creating an invidious classification that impinges on the fundamental right to travel. The Court further holds that such requirements are not justified by any compelling state interest. Majority opinion Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Brennan These appeals are…
…Maricopa County , 415 U.S. 250, 94 S. Ct. 1076, 39 L. Ed. 2d 306 (1974), we concluded that a county impermissibly burdened the right to travel
…In the intervening years, the Court has held that the Clause prevents state abridgment of only a handful of rights, such as the
The right protects both the act of moving and the right of newly arrived residents to be treated the same as longer-term residents with respect to essential benefits. A law that limits benefits for new residents to the level available in their former state therefore violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
Supporting sources
No. Conservation of public funds is a legitimate interest in many contexts but is not compelling when the classification penalizes recent arrivals for exercising the right to migrate. The state may not shift fiscal burdens by treating new residents as second-class citizens.
Supporting sources
Yes. Durational residency requirements for essential housing assistance and one-time repair grants that function like subsistence benefits are subject to the same prohibition. Such rules penalize migration when their purpose or effect is to deter needy newcomers.
Supporting sources