Also known as: right to travel · fundamental rights to travel · constitutional right to travel · interstate travel right
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional guarantee of interstate movement and migration that bars states from penalizing new residents through durational residency requirements for welfare eligibility. The right ensures that newly arrived residents receive the same treatment as longer-term residents with respect to basic public benefits. Durational waiting periods that deter migration or protect state treasuries from newcomers fail under equal protection analysis.
Freya Freeman moved from State A to State B with her two children to seek employment. Two months later she applied for State B's cash assistance program and met every eligibility criterion except the six-month residency rule. The agency denied her application solely because of the waiting period. A court orders the state to provide benefits because the requirement penalizes her recent exercise of the right to travel.
Flora Ford relocated from State C to State D for a new job. Upon applying for welfare she learned that State D would pay her only the lower amount she would have received in State C for her first year. She sues claiming unequal treatment. The court invalidates the rule because it treats new residents differently from established ones solely because they recently traveled interstate.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Felix Franco arrived in Chicago from another state and joined friends on a public sidewalk. Police arrested him under the city's anti-loitering ordinance that targeted groups including recent arrivals. He challenges the enforcement as burdening his ability to settle freely. The court finds the application unconstitutional because it interferes with the right to travel by restricting movement and association of new residents.
Fiona Foster moved to Oregon six months before a federal election. State officials refused to register her because she had not met the one-year residency requirement for voting. She sues claiming the rule burdens her right to travel. The court strikes down the requirement as applied to federal elections because it penalizes recent interstate migrants.
Faye Fuller drove across state lines to stay at a motel that refused service to out-of-state travelers. She sues under federal law after the denial. The court upholds her claim because the right to travel includes unimpeded access to interstate facilities without discriminatory barriers.
Felicia Fuentes moved to Mobile and registered to vote. The city's at-large election system diluted the votes of recent arrivals like her. She challenges the system as burdening her right to travel. The court examines whether the arrangement penalizes new residents for exercising interstate movement.
Strict scrutiny applies because the requirement burdens the fundamental right to travel. The state must show the classification is necessary to promote a compelling interest. Fiscal conservation and deterring indigent migrants are not permissible objectives.
The right protects both the decision to migrate and the right of new residents to equal treatment regarding basic benefits. States may not create two classes of residents based solely on length of residence for welfare eligibility.
No. Protecting the treasury or confirming community ties by excluding recent arrivals is not a constitutionally permissible objective when the classification penalizes interstate movement.
…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…