IV 
117TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. RES. 1212 
Affirming the constitutional right to travel freely and voluntarily within the 
United States, District of Columbia, Tribal lands, and the territories 
of the United States. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
JUNE 28, 2022 
Mr. RASKIN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary 
RESOLUTION 
Affirming the constitutional right to travel freely and volun-
tarily within the United States, District of Columbia, 
Tribal lands, and the territories of the United States. 
Whereas the right to travel freely and voluntarily among the 
several States is one of the chief privileges and immuni-
ties guaranteed to all citizens of the United States by the 
14th Amendment and one of the fundamental rights 
guaranteed to all persons under the 14th Amendment’s 
Equal Protection Clause; 
Whereas section 5 of the 14th Amendment empowers Con-
gress to enforce, by appropriate legislation, its provisions; 
Whereas the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that ‘‘a cit-
izen of one State who travels in other States, intending 
to return home at the end of his journey, is entitled to 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:10 Jun 28, 2022
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR1212.IH
HR1212
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1212 IH 
enjoy the ‘Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the 
several States’ that he visits’’ (Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 
489, 501 (1999) (citing Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546 
(No. 3,230) (C.C.E.D.Pa.1823); Edwards v. California, 
314 U.S. 160 (1941); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 
745 (1966))); and 
Whereas the Supreme Court long ago decided that one of the 
privileges or immunities that the Constitution guarantees 
is the ‘‘fundamental’’ right to travel from one State to 
another to seek and obtain services lawful in the latter 
State, including medical services, on terms of substantial 
equality with the residents of that State (Toomer v. 
Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 396 (1948); Hicklin v. Orbeck, 
437 U.S. 518, 525 (1978); Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 
200 (1973) (citing Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 
(1870)); Chalker v. Birmingham & N.W.R. Co., 249 U.S. 
522, 527 (1919); Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 52, 53 
(1920)): Now, therefore, be it 
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep-
resentatives that— 
(1) every person has the right to travel freely 
within the United States, the District of Columbia, 
Tribal lands, and the territories of the United States 
as a fundamental privilege and immunity of citizen-
ship in the United States; 
(2) no person should be held criminally liable or 
civilly liable in any way by any State or by the 
United States Government for voluntarily traveling 
within the United States, the District of Columbia, 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:10 Jun 28, 2022
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1212.IH
HR1212
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1212 IH 
Tribal lands, and the territories of the United States 
for the purposes of seeking or obtaining health care 
services in a destination jurisdiction, or for providing 
or facilitating such travel, or providing health care 
services in any jurisdiction to out-of-state patients, 
where the health care services so obtained are lawful 
in the jurisdiction where they are delivered; and 
(3) any person whose constitutional right to 
travel is violated under color of any statute, ordi-
nance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or 
territory or the District of Columbia, may seek re-
dress under section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of 
the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983). 
Æ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:10 Jun 28, 2022
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\HR1212.IH
HR1212
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS