Claim: The 1866 "Ex parte Milligan" precludes states from enforcing regulations that prevent residents from freely traveling or earning a living.
Verdict: REFUTES

Retrieved passages:
title: Ex parte Milligan
text: Ex parte Milligan Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled the application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional. In this particular case, the Court was unwilling to give President Abraham Lincoln's administration the power of military commission jurisdiction, part of the administration's controversial plan to deal with Union dissenters during the American Civil War. Justice David Davis, who delivered the majority opinion, stated that "martial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and confined martial law to areas of "military operations,

title: Ex parte Milligan
text: in their functions... yet wholly incompetent to avert threatened danger, or to punish, with adequate promptitude and certainty, the guilty conspirators." However, as Judge Davis described the status of the federal courts in Indiana at the time, "It needed no bayonets to protect it, and required no military aid to execute its judgments." "Ex parte Milligan" became well known as the leading U.S. Supreme Court case that found the president went beyond his legal powers to suppress dissenters during the American Civil War. The decision also helped establish the tradition that presidential and military action "based on war" had limits.

title: Ex parte Milligan
text: Horsey. The petitions were based on an act of the Congress titled "An Act Relating to Habeas Corpus and Regulation Judicial Proceedings in Certain Cases" that went into effect on March 3, 1863. The act was intended to resolve the question of whether Lincoln had the constitutional authority to suspend the writ of "habeas corpus" as authorized under Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Milligan's petition alleged that a federal grand jury had met in Indianapolis during January 1865, which it did, and it had not indicted him, which is also true, making him eligible for a release from prison

title: Expatriation Act of 1868
text: Judge David L. Bazelon argued that "[s]ince expatriation is today impossible without leaving the country, the policy expressed by Congress in 1868 and never repealed precludes a reading of the passport and travel control statutes which would permit the Secretary of State to prevent citizens from leaving". Chief Judge Henry White Edgerton concurred with Bazelon's opinion. Congress's power to legislate for implicit expatriation of Americans was later heavily restricted by the 1967 case "Afroyim v. Rusk", which concluded that natural-born Americans cannot be deprived of citizenship by any means except a voluntary renunciation in the presence of a consular official.

title: Freedom of movement under United States law
text: 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Supreme Court overruled Chief Justice White's conclusion that the federal government could protect the right to travel only against state infringement. The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that "Crandall" does not imply a right to use any particular "mode" of travel, such as driving an automobile. In "Hendrick v. Maryland" (1915), the appellant asked the Court to void Maryland's motor vehicle statute as a violation of the freedom of movement. The Court found "no solid foundation" for the appellant's argument and unanimously held that "in the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state

title: United States v. Wheeler (1920)
text: had not resided within the jurisdiction for at least one year as an impermissible burden on the right to travel. The Court has used "Wheeler" to strike down one-year residency requirements for voting in state elections, one-year waiting periods before receiving state-provided medical care, civil service preferences for state veterans, and higher fishing and hunting license fees for out-of-state residents. The "Wheeler" decision may yet have even farther-reaching implications. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that freedom of movement is closely related to freedom of association and to freedom of expression. Strong constitutional protection for the right to travel may have

title: Eunique v. Powell
text: safe harbor derived from state law) the federal statute was predicated on state certification of child support delinquency provided in accordance with federal law. Judge McKeown then engaged in a survey of precedent in right to international travel cases. She distinguished "Kent", "Aptheker", and "Zemel", concluding that the Court had held that the right to international travel could be regulated within the bounds of due process, and that “legislation which is said to infringe on the freedom to travel abroad is not to be judged by the same standard applied to laws that penalize the right of interstate travel”. Laws

title: Gerald Heaney
text: Kassel", 612 F.2d 1064 (8th Cir. 1979), aff'd, 450 U.S. 662 (1981), Iowa's prohibition of extra-long semitrailer trucks was alleged to unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce, in violation of what is known as the dormant Commerce Clause. The court upheld the claim and struck down the requirement. In the court's opinion, Judge Heaney reasoned that, while "some burdening of interstate commerce will be tolerated" for the sake of safety, The Iowa regulation failed because it burdened interstate commerce and failed to directly protect a state safety interest. Two years later, the United States Supreme Court affirmed this ruling. Gerald and Eleanor

title: Ex parte Milligan
text: not the situation in Indiana, where the civilian courts were still operating at the time of Milligan's arrest, trial, and incarceration. The majority opinion further observed that during the suspension of the writ of "habeas corpus", citizens may be only detained without charges, not "tried" or executed under the jurisdictions of military tribunals. The writ is not the right itself, but merely the ability to issue orders demanding the right's "enforcement." In "Ex parte Milligan", which in essence was a case about governmental power and personal liberty, the Court's decision stood "on the side of personal liberty." In this case

title: Ex parte Young
text: Ex parte Young Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts against officials acting on behalf of states of the union to proceed despite the State's sovereign immunity, when the State acted unconstitutionally. The state of Minnesota passed laws limiting what railroads could charge in that state and established severe penalties, including fines and jail for violators. Some shareholders of Northern Pacific Railway filed a lawsuit in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota asserting that the laws were unconstitutional as violating the Due Process

title: Crandall v. Nevada
text: Crandall v. Nevada Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35 (1868), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed that a state cannot inhibit people from leaving the state by taxing them. The decision was written by Justice Miller. Chief Justice Chase and Justice Clifford concurred. In 1867, a Nevada statute imposed a $1 tax on every person leaving the state by railroad, stage coach, or other vehicles engaged or employed in the business of transporting passengers for hire. The Court reasoned that the right to travel is a fundamental right. The people of the United States constituting one

title: United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
text: to his right to be or to remain in the United States." The second was Section 287 (a) (3) of the Act, 8 U. S. C. § 1357 (a) (3), which authorizes agents, without a warrant, to search cars traveling near the border that are suspected to have or are transporting persons trying to enter the country illegally. From this, they believe that their actions were lawful even if an act of Congress cannot supersede the Constitution. The Court held a search and seizure based solely on the "appearance of Mexican ancestry" violates the Fourth Amendment. Without a reasonable suspicion

title: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
text: of meeting the need is available, and intrusion on people's privacy is minimal, certain discretionless checkpoints toward that end may briefly detain motorists. In "United States v. Martinez-Fuerte" (1976), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless immigration checkpoints. In "Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz" (1990), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless sobriety checkpoints. In "Illinois v. Lidster" (2004), the Supreme Court allowed focused informational checkpoints. However, in "City of Indianapolis v. Edmond" (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that discretionary checkpoints or general crime-fighting checkpoints are not allowed. Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement must receive written permission from a court of

title: Ex parte Milligan
text: Indiana at Indianapolis for a writ of "habeas corpus", which called for a justification of Milligan's arrest. A similar petition was filed on behalf of Bowles and Horsey. The two judges who reviewed Milligan's petition disagreed about the issue of whether the U.S. Constitution prohibited civilians from being tried by a military commission and passed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case was argued before the Court on March 5 and March 13, 1866; its decision was handed down on April 3, 1866. During the American Civil War, the administration of President Abraham Lincoln dealt with Union dissenters

title: Passenger Cases
text: and residents of the state. Wayne even commented in dictum that if Congress ever exercised its power of regulating immigration to compel states to accept such persons, that the United States Supreme Court would readily strike down such a federal statute as unconstitutional. The clause of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution prohibiting any "Preference" with respect to "Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another" is not limited to federal action but also precludes any action by the states that would result in such a preference. Wayne deems a tax

title: Arizona v. United States
text: discretion as to whether or how immigration laws are enforced is an important component of Congressional authority. At the same time, Justice Kennedy's opinion acknowledged the serious concerns experienced by Arizona citizens and officials in dealing with illegal immigration, noting that signs along highways south of Phoenix, Arizona discourage travel by the public due to dangerous smuggling activities. The majority opinion analyzed the four provisions in question within the framework of preemption, derived from the Supremacy Clause, requiring that federal law will prevail when state and federal laws conflict. The Court held that "the Federal Government has occupied the field

title: Califano v. Aznavorian
text: applied to laws that penalize the right of interstate travel, did not depend on compelling justifications. The Court rejected Aznavorian's assertion that because the statutory provision of § 1611(f)limits the freedom of international travel, a more stringent standard must be applied in its constitutional appraisal. The Court noted that legislation providing governmental payments of monetary benefits here had an incidental effect on a protected liberty and it did not have nearly so direct an impact on the freedom to travel internationally as occurred in the "Kent", "Aptheker", or "Zemel". It did not limit the availability or validity of passports and

title: Arizona v. United States
text: On July 28, 2010, Judge Bolton issued an order denying in part and granting in part the United States' Motion for Preliminary Injunction heard the prior week. Among the provisions that will go into effect are the following: A.R.S. § 11-1051(A): prohibiting Arizona officials, agencies, and political subdivisions from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws; A.R.S. § 11-1051(C)-(F): requiring that state officials work with federal officials with regard to undocumented immigrants; and, A.R.S. § 11-1051(G)-(L): allowing legal residents to sue any state official, agency, or political subdivision for adopting a policy of restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws to less

title: Passenger Cases
text: when the federal government actively regulates some aspect of foreign or interstate commerce, the states are prohibited by the Supremacy Clause from enacting or enforcing any law inconsistent with the federal law. He deemed that the federal government had engaged in regulating foreign commerce regarding passengers arriving from Britain when it entered into a series of treaties with that country. Wayne declared that the New York and Massachusetts statutes "conflict with treaty stipulations existing between the United States and Great Britain, permitting the inhabitants of the two countries 'freely and securely to come, with their ships and cargoes, to all

title: Ex parte Young
text: Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Dormant Commerce Clause. The shareholders sued the railroads to prevent them from complying with the law. They also sued Edward T. Young, the Attorney General of Minnesota, to prevent him from enforcing the law. Young argued that the Eleventh Amendment, which prohibits states from being sued by citizens of other states, meant that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The federal circuit court still issued an injunction against Young enforcing the law. The following day, Young filed a proceeding in Minnesota state court to force the railroads