Case: Yellowhammer Fund v. Marshall

Court: District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division

Citation: No. 2:23‑cv‑00450‑MHT‑KFP, 2025 WL 959948 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2025).

Holding: The court held that the Alabama Attorney General’s threats to prosecute individuals who help others obtain abortions outside of the state of Alabama violated the right to travel. Additionally, applying strict scrutiny, the court held that such threats violate the First Amendment.

Constitutional Claims: 1) Right to travel; 2) Due Process Clause; 3) First Amendment expressive conduct and freedom of association

Key Reasoning: Observing that the right to travel is not expressly stated in the Constitution, the court considered both historical evidence and past precedent in determining that the right to travel is "one of our most fundamental constitutional rights.” Id. at 52.  Citing the history and tradition standard in Dobbs, the gun rights case, N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, and Washington v. Glucksberg, the court held that the right to travel is a substantive right “deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Id. at 78 n.20.

In support of its holding, the court delves into the purpose of the right to travel throughout history, finding that as far back as the Magna Carta, the right was understood to ensure that people could engage in lawful conduct while traveling. Id. at 54. This right was also expressly recognized in founding era documents, like  Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, which guaranteed that all citizens “shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof.” Id. at 54-55.  The decision also canvasses the robust body of judicial precedent, including cases dating back to 1867, and legal scholarship on the “history and jurisprudence of the right to travel.”  

Relying on these sources, the opinion underscores the right to travel as fundamental and foundational to the nation and concludes it is impermissible for a state to attempt a “backdoor circumvention” by targeting “those who would provide necessary assistance” to exercise the right.

Case Status/Subsequent History: Decision and judgment are final (no appeal filed).