(March 30) One of the most constitutionally and morally problematic responses to the coronavirus pandemic is that of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in strongly dissuading residents of certain states from entering Florida’s territory.
This newly Draconian reaction comes from the same governor who arguably underreacted by keeping his state’s beaches open longer than many critics said was wise. So, after many thousands of irresponsible beachgoers from all over the country found their way to open Florida beaches, DeSantis now tells innocent people from Louisiana, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut that they cannot enter his state at all unless they self-isolate for 14 days.
The order itself stops just short of obvious constitutional transgressions. Yet, the questions raised by the order may soon come into play across the country. The moral issues involved in DeSantis’s order also are important.
The constitutional issues were addressed in the 1999 Supreme Court case of Saenz v. Roe, one of the favorite cases of libertarian-leaning constitutional law nerds. It involved an effort by California to provide less in welfare benefits to newcomers than to long-term residents of the state.
As the case syllabus concisely explained, the court reaffirmed a constitutional “right to travel [that] embraces three different components: the right to enter and leave another state; the right to be treated as a welcome visitor while temporarily present in another state; and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that state.”
As the case syllabus concisely explained, the court reaffirmed a constitutional “right to travel [that] embraces three different components: the right to enter and leave another state; the right to be treated as a welcome visitor while temporarily present in another state; and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that state.”….
[The rest of the column is at this link.]
