Federal Appellate & District Court Cases

---

CASE LAW EXCERPTS FROM LOWER FEDERAL COURTS

"Freedom to leave a country or a hemisphere is as much a part of liberty as freedom to leave a State." Shachtman v. Dulles, 225 F.2d 938 (1955) 

"for the Government may not arbitrarily restrain the liberty of a citizen to travel" Shachtman v. Dulles, 225 F.2d 938 (1955)

"Restraint upon travel abroad might be reasonable during an emergency though in normal times it would be arbitrary." Shachtman v. Dulles, 225 F.2d 938 (1955)

"The right to travel travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law. A restraint imposed by the Government of the United States upon this liberty, therefore, must conform with the provision of the Fifth Amendment that ‘No person shall be * * * deprived of * * * liberty * * * without due process of law’. "Shachtman v. Dulles, 225 F.2d 938 (CA12 1955) Dist. of Columbia Circuit 12th Cir. Court of Appeals

FYI - there's a quote floating on the internet that cites the above case but this quote is not written exactly as found on sites and videos, it is true that this case states that the right to travel is a natural right but if you read the case in its entirety you will not see it quoted verbatim as below even though the quote found on the internet is completely true; the courts recognize the the right to travel as a natural right and the right to travel does not owe its existence to the federal government.

"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938 (1955)

“Under any approach we might take to equal protection analysis, the Stamford ordinance cannot be sustained by this state interest. We say this without in any way failing to recognize that the right to travel abridged by the Stamford ordinance has only recently been reaffirmed as a “fundamental” one, requiring the showing of a “compelling” state or local interest to warrant its limitation. Graham v. Richardson, supra; Shapiro v. Thompson, supra. See also Rivera v. Dunn, supra (summary affirmance). Indeed, only the other day the “fundamental right”-“compelling state interest” formulation was referred to with approval in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973); see also Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973).” Demiragh v. DeVos, 476 F.2d 403 (CA2 1973)

"It would be meaningless to describe the right to travel between states as a fundamental precept of personal liberty and not to acknowledge a correlative constitutional right to travel within a state.6 Cf. *649 Valenciano v. Bateman, 323 F.Supp. 600 (D.C.Ariz.). See Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125-126, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204 (1958); Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 255, 84 S.Ct. 1814, 12 L.Ed.2d 822 (1964) (separate opinion of Douglas, J.); Note, Residence Requirements after Shapiro v. Thompson, 70 Colum.L.Rev. 134, 137-139 (1970)." King v. New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority, 442 F.2d 646 (2nd Cir. 1971)

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486 (1956) 5h Cir. Court of Appeals

Sherar v. Cullen 481 F.2d 945 (1973) 9th Cir. Court of Appeals Holding:  that an individual cannot be sanctioned or penalized for exercising his or her constitutional rights.

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS 

"These fundamental interests include the right to vote, the right of access to the courts, and the right to interstate travel. *1237 San Antonio Indep. School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 18–20, 32–36, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 1288–90, 1296–98, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973)." Jones v. Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (1993) U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Colorado 

"The right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the state; may be mentioned as some of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental: to which may be added, the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the state in which it is to be exercised. These, and many others which might be mentioned, are, strictly speaking, privileges and immunities,...."  Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823)  Federal District Court