Also known as: right to travel · travel right · right of travel · freedom to travel · freedom of movement · right to interstate travel · right to intrastate travel
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A fundamental constitutional right that protects interstate movement and bars states from imposing durational residency requirements that deter the migration of indigent persons or deny new residents equal treatment with longer-term residents.
Tara Tran moved from another state to City B after losing her job. She secured part-time work and applied for the city's cash-assistance program. The city denied her application solely because she had lived there only four months, short of the one-year durational residency requirement. The denial burdens her right to travel by penalizing recent interstate movement to deter indigent migration.
Tessa Takahashi relocated to State A for better schools and applied for cash assistance available to low-income workers. The state limited her benefits to the amount she would have received in her prior state and imposed a one-year waiting period for full payments. This classification treats newly arrived residents differently and infringes the right to travel by denying equal access to benefits.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Taliah Tang was driving across state lines to start a new job when an officer stopped her vehicle. The officer lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity but detained her to check her travel plans. The stop occurred during protected interstate movement.
Talia Torres arrived from another state seeking lodging at a motel that refused service to nonresidents. The refusal targeted recent interstate travelers seeking equal access to public accommodations.
Tracy Torres moved to a new state with her children and sought protection services after prior abuse in her former state. State officials took no action because she had not resided there long enough. The inaction followed her interstate relocation.
Tobias Thomas obtained a judgment in his home state and sought enforcement against a defendant who had relocated. The forum state refused full faith and credit because the plaintiff had recently traveled there. The refusal imposed unequal treatment on new arrivals.
Strict scrutiny applies because the right to travel is fundamental. A state must show a compelling interest and narrow tailoring. Fiscal concerns alone do not qualify as a compelling interest when the requirement deters indigent migration.
Yes. Such a period penalizes new residents by denying equal treatment and deters interstate movement of those who may need assistance. The purpose of protecting the treasury by discouraging entry is not constitutionally permissible.
No. The right to travel includes the right of newly arrived residents to equal treatment. Limiting benefits to the former state's level violates equal protection and the Privileges or Immunities Clause.
…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…