Isabella Carter
The right to interstate travel in the United States is protected by the Constitution, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process and equal protection under the law. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that state governments treat all American citizens equally, regardless of their state of residence. This clause has been used to strike down state laws that discriminate against citizens based on their duration of residency. The right to interstate travel is also supported by Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, which states that citizens of each state shall enjoy the same privileges and immunities as citizens of other states. The Supreme Court has upheld the right to travel in various cases, including Saenz v. Roe in 1999, affirming the constitutional protection of the right to move freely across state lines.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Amendment | Fourteenth Amendment |
| Article | Article IV |
| Clause | Privileges or Immunities Clause |
| Court Cases | Dunn v. Blumstein, Sosna v., Saenz v. Roe, Marston v. Lewis, Burns v. Fortson, Kanapaux v. Ellisor, Sununu v. Stark, Kent v. Dulles, Corfield v. Coryell, Paul v. Virginia, Ward v. Maryland |
| Year | 1999 |
| Subject | Interstate travel, freedom of movement, civil rights, privileges and immunities, residency requirements, divorce proceedings, welfare benefits, federal regulation of transportation |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The right to interstate travel
The "right to travel" encompasses three key rights, two of which have been notable for their uncertain doctrinal basis. Firstly, it includes the right of citizens to move freely between states, a right that has been recognised for its longevity. This freedom of movement was explicitly mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, indicating its importance in fostering a stronger and more unified nation.
The second right guaranteed by the "right to travel" is outlined in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, which states that citizens of each state shall be entitled to the "Privileges and Immunities" of citizens in other states. In simpler terms, state governments must treat all American citizens equally, regardless of whether they are visitors or residents. This provision ensures that individuals temporarily visiting another state are afforded the same rights and protections as the citizens of that state.
The third right pertains to the right of a new arrival in a state to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other citizens of that state. This right is often invoked in challenges to durational residency requirements, which mandate that individuals reside in a state for a specified period before accessing the full benefits of citizenship. Such requirements have been deemed unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as they create two classes of persons based on their length of residency.
While the "right to travel" is widely recognised, its specific textual source in the Constitution remains unresolved. In the 1999 case of Saenz v. Roe, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens acknowledged this ambiguity, stating that the right to travel may have been "conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created." Despite the uncertainty surrounding its exact origin, the "right to travel" remains a fundamental principle protecting the freedom and equality of citizens across the United States.
The 16th Amendment: A Taxing Time for America
You may want to see also
Durational residency requirements
The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been invoked to strike down certain durational residency requirements. For instance, in Dunn v. Blumstein, the classification based on residency was deemed unconstitutional when it denied newcomers the right to vote. Similarly, a California law that reduced welfare benefits for new residents was invalidated under the same clause.
However, some durational residency requirements have been upheld. For instance, in Sosna v. Iowa, the Supreme Court sustained a one-year residency requirement for initiating divorce proceedings, with the state's interest in ensuring individuals seeking divorce were "genuinely attached" to the state being a key factor. Durational residency requirements for lower in-state tuition at public colleges have also been deemed constitutionally justifiable, although the specific rationale is unclear.
The right to travel, which is implicated by durational residency requirements, is protected by the Constitution. This right includes intrastate travel, which must meet equal protection standards. While the exact origin of the right to travel is uncertain, it is guaranteed by the Constitution and has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.
In summary, durational residency requirements must be carefully evaluated to ensure they do not infringe on constitutional rights. While some requirements have been struck down under the Fourteenth Amendment, others have been upheld based on specific state interests. The right to travel, which is integral to this discussion, is a protected constitutional right that influences how these residency requirements are assessed.
Constitutional Amendments: What Passed and What Didn't
You may want to see also
Congressional regulation of land transportation
The expansion of Congressional authority in land transportation regulation can be traced through several key pieces of legislation. In 1886, the Court affirmed that Congress had the exclusive power to set charges for carriage, even within a state's boundaries, when it came to goods brought from or destined for other states. This was followed by the original Interstate Commerce Act in 1887, which established a Commission authorised to determine the "reasonableness" of rates by railroads for interstate commerce.
The Hepburn Act of 1906 and the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910 further expanded the Commission's authority. The Hepburn Act empowered the Commission to determine and prescribe maximum rates after a full hearing on a complaint, while the Mann-Elkins Act authorised it to set rates independently and suspend rate increases by carriers until reviewed. The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 extended the Commission's jurisdiction to include the regulation of motor vehicles used by common carriers for transporting people and goods.
The Transportation Acts of 1920 and 1940 played a significant role in shaping the modern powers of the Commission. These acts aimed to create an integrated interstate regulatory system over motor, railroad, and water carriers, covering their characteristics, issuance of securities, and consolidations. The Commission was charged with fostering and promoting the country's transportation needs, marking a shift from restraint to a consistent national transportation policy.
Congress has also addressed labour protection in the land transportation industry. The Safety Appliance Act of 1893, amended in 1903, and the Hours of Service Act of 1907, focused on safeguarding workers and the public by regulating work hours and ensuring safe equipment for interstate rail operations. Additionally, Congress has asserted its authority over the interstate transportation of oil, gas, and electricity, with the Federal Power Act of 1935 giving the Federal Power Commission regulatory powers over the wholesale distribution of electricity and natural gas in interstate commerce.
Amendment Location: Second Amendment in the Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Freedom of movement
The right to travel, a fundamental aspect of freedom of movement, has been judicially recognised as a constitutional right since the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell (1823). The Supreme Court has also dealt with the right to travel in several cases, including Saenz v. Roe (1999), where Justice John Paul Stevens held that the US Constitution protects three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states:
- The right to enter one state and leave another, with historical support from the Articles of Confederation.
- The right to be treated as a welcome visitor, protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV, § 2.
- The right, for permanent residents of a state, to be treated equally to native-born citizens, protected by the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities Clause.
The 14th Amendment also addresses privileges and immunities, along with its guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law. Durational residency requirements, which require individuals to reside in a state for a specified period before accessing certain benefits, have been challenged under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In Dunn v. Blumstein, for example, the Court struck down a California law that limited welfare benefits for new residents, finding that such requirements create two classes of persons and deter or penalise the exercise of the constitutional right to travel.
The right to travel has also been implicated in cases involving passport restrictions. In Kent v. Dulles (1958), the court held that the federal government may not restrict the right to travel without due process, and that freedom of movement is a part of the 'liberty' of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.
Amending Freedom: Republic's Evolution
You may want to see also
Privileges and Immunities Clause
The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the US Constitution (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1) prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner. It ensures that citizens of each state are entitled to the same privileges and immunities as citizens of other states. This clause is often referred to as the Comity Clause and is similar to a provision in the Articles of Confederation, which stated that "The free inhabitants of each of these States...shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States."
The Supreme Court has long recognised the right to travel from one state to another under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. This right to interstate travel was affirmed in cases such as Crandall v. Nevada (1868), where the Supreme Court declared that freedom of movement is a fundamental right, and Paul v. Virginia (1868), where the Court stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause includes "the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."
The Privileges and Immunities Clause also protects other fundamental rights, such as the right to acquire and possess property, the right to pursue a livelihood, the right to free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to keep and bear arms. In the case of Colgate v. Harvey (1935), the Court held that the right of a citizen to engage in lawful business in other states was protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
The Clause has been used to challenge durational residency requirements, which mandate that individuals reside in a state for a specified period before becoming entitled to the benefits of state citizenship. In Dunn v. Blumstein, the Privileges and Immunities Clause was used to strike down a California law that limited welfare benefits for new residents. However, the Court has also upheld certain durational residency requirements, such as in Sosna v., which involved a one-year requirement for divorce proceedings.
While the Privileges and Immunities Clause protects against discriminatory laws affecting fundamental rights, the Court applies a two-part test to determine violations. Firstly, it examines if a law discriminates against out-of-state citizens regarding fundamental rights. Secondly, it assesses whether the state has a substantial reason for the discriminatory treatment and if the law is substantially related to that reason.
The Unchangeable Core of Indian Democracy
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The right to interstate travel in the United States is a constitutional right that allows citizens to move freely between states. This right is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that citizens of each state are entitled to the same privileges and immunities as citizens of other states.
The right to interstate travel has been interpreted by the courts as encompassing three separate rights: the right to enter one state and leave another, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor, and the right for permanent residents of a state to be treated equally to native-born citizens. The courts have also upheld the power of Congress to regulate certain aspects of interstate travel, such as the transportation of oil and gas by pipeline.
Yes, there have been some restrictions on the right to interstate travel in the United States. For example, in 1910, the Mann Act banned the interstate transport of females for "immoral purposes," which was used to prosecute individuals for extramarital sex. Additionally, there have been cases where durational residency requirements have been upheld, such as in voter registration and divorce proceedings.
![There Was an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Truck (There Was an Old Lady [Colandro])](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/A1oGS0v949L._AC_UL320_.jpg)
