us-constitution travel
Is the right to free travel somehow covered in the First Amendment?
<p>Could travel be a way to express oneself? </p>

<p>It appears that the "leading" source of Freedom of Movement is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause" rel="noreferrer">Privileges and Immunities Clause</a> (Art. IV, S.2 , Cl. 1) of the US Constitution, that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States". See <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/73/35/case.html" rel="noreferrer">Crandall v. State of Nevada, 73 US 35</a>: "We are all citizens of the United States, and as members of the same community must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own states" (quoted from an earlier case); <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/254/281/" rel="noreferrer">US v. Wheeler</a>, 254 U.S. 281</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In all the states, from the beginning down to the establishment of the
  Articles of Confederation, the citizens possessed the right, inherent
  in citizens of all free governments, peacefully to dwell within the
  limits of their respective states, to move at will from place to place
  therein, and to have free ingress thereto and egress therefrom</p>
</blockquote>

<p>citing the Privileges &amp; Immunities clause as the constitutional foundation.</p>

<p>However, <a href="https://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/wilhelm.pdf" rel="noreferrer">this article</a>, sect. IB notes a number of additional constiutional sources:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Various Justices at various  times  have  suggested  no  fewer  than 
  seven  different  sources:  the  Article IV Privileges and Immunities
  Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges   and   [sic]   Immunities
  Clause,   a   conception   of   national   citizenship  said  to  be 
  implicit  in  the  structural  logic  of  the  Constitution  itself,
  the Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and each of the Due
  Process Clauses.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._California" rel="noreferrer">Edwards  v.  California,</a> 314 U.S. 160 relates freedom of movement to the Commerce Clause, <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/378/500/case.html" rel="noreferrer">Aptheker v. Sec’y of State</a>, 378 U.S. 500 points us to the Due Process clause. The argument hasn't apparently been made based on the First Amendment, since there are better arguments.</p>
