Court Opinion

ID: 9671356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:35:01.437666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:33.614122
License: Public Domain

*100Wilkie, J.
(dissenting). In my judgment, sec. 49.09,
Stats., places an impermissible restriction on the right of an individual to travel within the state, thus violating both the state and federal constitutions; therefore, I dissent. Although there is some disagreement over which particular provision of the federal constitution grants such right, it is nonetheless true that the constitutional right to travel has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court as early as in the Passenger Cases of 1849.1
In Kent v. Dulles2 the court emphasized the importance of this right:
“The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law .... In Anglo-Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta [footnote omitted]. Chafee, Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 (1956), 171-181, 187 et seq., shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. [Citations omitted.] ‘Our nation,’ wrote Chafee, ‘has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.’ Id., at 197.”
As to the Wisconsin Constitution, I believe that this same basic right to freedom of movement is included within the “inherent rights” guaranteed by art. I, sec. I.3
*101As noted by the majority, Shapiro v. Thompson4 struck down various states’ residency requirements for welfare recipients because they restricted the poor person’s migration. The basic nature of this right to free migration was most recently emphasized in Pease v. Hansen 5 wherein the supreme court said that such residence requirements were invalid even when no federal funds were involved.
Applying these concepts to the present appeal, I believe that the statutory scheme is unconstitutional. Mr. and Mrs. Reitz moved to Milwaukee early in 1967, and now, more than four years later, they are being required to pack up and return to the town of Vanden Broek. Because the legislature has seen fit to adopt the fiction of “legal settlement,” the town can force these pople to give up their home in Milwaukee and return to Vanden Broek as a condition precedent to receiving welfare benefits. In view of this fact, I am at a loss to understand the majority’s finding that “the defendants’ right to travel is [not] impaired.” The basic concept behind “removal” as authorized by sec. 49.09, Stats., is to restrict the welfare recipient’s right to move within the state. He moves where he chooses but always subject to removal back to where he came from. The majority opinion states that “the defendants apparently want to continue to live in Milwaukee and have the town of Vanden Broek pay their relief costs.” As I read the statute, defendants have no choice, they must receive their benefits from Vanden Broek.
Under sec. 49.09, Stats., the trial court is authorized to order a poor person to leave his home and move back to the place of “legal settlement” only because he receives *102welfare benefits and only upon a showing that he would be no worse in the place of “legal settlement” than in the place of his choice. I would declare sec. 49.09 unconstitutional and would therefore reverse the order of the county court.

 (1849), 48 U. S. (7 How.) 283, 12 L. Ed. 702.

 (1958), 357 U. S. 116, 125, 126, 78 Sup. Ct. 1113, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1204.

 Art. I, sec. 1, Wis. Const. “Equality; inherent rights. SECTION 1. All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit *101of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

 (1969), 394 U. S. 618, 89 Sup. Ct. 1322, 22 L. Ed. 2d 600.

 (1971), 404 U. S. 70, 92 Sup. Ct. 318, 30 L. Ed. 2d 224.