What rights do Americans have to travel from one location to another? Can states restrict the freedom of movement?

These questions appear to have been answered in a case from the 1930s Depression. Several states enacted laws prohibiting entry unless the person had a means of support. The laws were targeted against those from impoverished Dust Bowl states like Oklahoma.

In 1941 the Supreme Court struck down the “anti-Okie” laws. The Court majority relied on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the exclusive power “to regulate Commerce…among the several states.” The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot restrict the movement of individuals to protect their own commercial self-interests.

A more expansive justification was provided by Justice Jackson. He reasoned that freedom of movement is not related to a right to engage in commerce, but is an inherent right of all who reside in the US. “[I]t is a privilege of citizenship of the United States, protected from state abridgment, to enter any state of the Union…If national citizenship means less than this, it means nothing.”

What does this have to do with us? To address the coronavirus situation, some states are restricting entry by citizens from other states. Florida wants to bar citizens from certain specific states. Rhode Island (and Arizona) requires 14 days self-quarantine for certain visitors. Three men from Massachusetts were arrested for driving to Rhode Island for a round of golf.

We are in unusual times. One approach to crisis management is to establish procedures to follow when there is no crisis, and avoid a panic reaction when there is a crisis. Do we follow the old rules or invoke new “emergency” rules? Established rules for the right of free movement are being tested.