MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL

 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL

TO: The Honorable [Judge's Name], [Court Name]
FROM: [Your Name/Firm Name]
DATE: October 14, 2025
CASE NAME: [Plaintiff's Name] v. [Defendant's Name]
CASE NO.: [Case Number] 

I. INTRODUCTION

This memorandum is submitted in support of [Defendant/Plaintiff]’s motion to dismiss/summary judgment/etc. The issue before this Court is whether the State's restriction on [describe the specific restriction, e.g., the requirement for a driver's license to operate a private vehicle on public roads, a durational residency requirement for a government benefit] impermissibly infringes upon the fundamental right to travel. As will be demonstrated, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized the right to travel as a fundamental constitutional right, protected by multiple provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Because the State's regulation is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, it must be struck down. 

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

[Provide a concise and neutral statement of the facts relevant to the motion. This section should explain the specific circumstances under which the right to travel was allegedly violated.]

III. LEGAL ARGUMENT

A. THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL IS A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

The right to travel is a cornerstone of American liberty, consistently affirmed by the Supreme Court. While the Court has sometimes debated its precise textual source, it has recognized the right as a necessary concomitant of a strong union. The right has been linked to the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In Saenz v. Roe, the Supreme Court articulated that the right to travel is composed of three parts: 

The right of a citizen of one state to enter and leave another state.

1. The right to be treated as a welcome visitor while temporarily in another state.
2. For those who choose to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that state.

B. ANY INFRINGEMENT ON A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT MUST SATISFY STRICT SCRUTINY 

Because the right to travel is fundamental, any law infringing upon it is subject to strict scrutiny. To survive strict scrutiny, the State must demonstrate that its regulation is: 

Necessary to serve a compelling state interest.

1. Narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
2. The burden is on the State to prove that no less-restrictive alternative could achieve the same objective.

C. THE STATE’S REGULATION FAILS TO WITHSTAND STRICT SCRUTINY

1. The State's purported interest is not sufficiently compelling.

[Explain the state's asserted interest in enacting the regulation, e.g., promoting public safety, preventing fraud, etc. Argue why, in this specific case, that interest is either not compelling or could be achieved through less-restrictive means. For example, regarding driver's licenses, the right to travel is distinguished from the privilege of driving for commercial purposes.] 

2. The regulation is not narrowly tailored. 

[Argue that even if the State's interest were compelling, the regulation is not designed in the least restrictive way possible to achieve its objective. Point out how the rule is overbroad or targets activities beyond the State's legitimate interest. For example, requiring all individuals to obtain a license for any movement on public roads, even non-commercial travel, is overly broad and infringes on the constitutional right to travel.] 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the State's restriction on [describe the specific restriction] impermissibly burdens the fundamental right to travel and fails to survive strict scrutiny. This Court should therefore grant [Defendant/Plaintiff]’s motion and find the restriction unconstitutional.

Respectfully submitted,

[Your Name/Firm Name]
[Address]
[Phone Number]
[Email Address]
[Bar Number]