Biden administration may consider 'vaccine passports' for interstate travel

The AP reports that "...while more severe measures — such as mandating vaccines for interstate travel or changing how the federal government reimburses treatment for those who are unvaccinated and become ill with COVID-19 — have been discussed, the administration worried that they would be too polarizing for the moment."

"That's not to say they won't be implemented in the future," the AP writes, "as public opinion continues to shift toward requiring vaccinations as a means to restore normalcy."

[...]

Georgetown Law took up the question of Americans' rights to travel freely within the United States under the Trump administration at the start of the pandemic. At the time, Americans in many parts of the country were asked to "lockdown" for two week and to "slow the spread" so that when Americans got sick and ended up in the hospital, they didn't all end up there at once, overwhelming the medical infrastructure.

Meryl Chertoff, Executive Director, SALPAL writes: "The right of Americans to travel interstate in the United States has never been substantially judicially questioned or limited. In 1941, the Court declared unconstitutional California's restriction upon the migration of the 'Okies'—whose travails are famously documented in 'The Grapes of Wrath.' Justice Douglas referred to 'the right of free movement' as 'a right of national citizenship,' and the rights of the migrants were upheld under the Commerce Clause."

"The Privileges and Immunities Clause protects the rights of US citizens," Chertoff goes on to say, "who are each also the citizens of a state, against discriminatory treatment under the law of a different state. In a 1985 case, the Court found that the Privileges and Immunities clause prohibited discrimination against a non-resident except where (i) there is a substantial reason for the difference in treatment; and (ii) the discrimination practiced against nonresidents bears a substantial relationship to the State's objective. In deciding whether the discrimination bears a close or substantial relationship to the State's objective, the Court has considered the availability of less restrictive means."