Press Esc to close · / or Ctrl+K to open
Primary Source Case Library
Save this page, share it with others, and return whenever you need a deeper collection of opinions and primary PDFs related to right-to-travel research.
These documents are provided for study and source verification. Read the full opinion and consult qualified legal counsel for advice about a specific matter.
Why it matters: This early decision is cited when researching whether a state may place a financial burden on a person's departure or access to the national government.
"[A] citizen of the United States has the right to come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon that government."
The wording matters because it connects movement with practical access to the federal government, not merely a commercial transaction.
Why it matters: The case addresses a state law that criminalized bringing an indigent person into the state, making interstate entry the issue.
"The transportation of persons is 'commerce,' within the meaning of the Commerce Clause."
The wording matters because the Court treated the crossing of a state line by a person as a constitutional question, not simply a local police-power matter.
Why it matters: This passport case is often consulted for its discussion of liberty to travel and the need for clear congressional authorization before executive restrictions.
"The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."
The wording matters because it identifies travel as a liberty interest and focuses attention on the legal source of any claimed restriction.
Why it matters: This is a direct Supreme Court statement that interstate movement has constitutional protection.
"The constitutional right to travel from one State to another ... occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union."
The wording matters because the Court calls the right “fundamental” and places it in the structure of the Union itself.
Why it matters: This case explains why a residency rule can be unconstitutional when it penalizes a person for moving between states.
"The constitutional right to travel from one State to another is firmly embedded in our jurisprudence."
The wording matters because it rejects the idea that interstate travel is a newly invented or marginal right; the Court says it is deeply established.
Why it matters: The Court tested a voter-residency requirement against the constitutional right to interstate travel.
"[A] durational residence requirement directly impinges on the right to travel."
The wording matters because it describes the burden as direct, showing why the Court required a stronger justification than ordinary administrative convenience.
Why it matters: This opinion applies the travel analysis to a one-year residency requirement for nonemergency medical care.
"[T]he right to travel is constitutionally protected."
The wording matters because it shows the doctrine reaching a real-world residency barrier, not just an abstract statement of principle.
Why it matters: This modern decision explains the equal-treatment dimension of the right to travel after a person becomes a resident of a new state.
"The right to travel embraces the citizen's right to be treated equally in her new State of residence."
The wording matters because it identifies more than movement: it addresses whether a newcomer can be placed in a lesser class once they arrive.