Mitchell v. Steffen

Because I would answer all three questions presented in the negative, I respectfully dissent and would hold that Minn. Stat. § 256D.065 (1992) is constitutional.

The right to travel is implicated when a statute actually deters travel, when impeding travel is its primary purpose, or when it uses any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of the right to travel. Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 903, 106 S.Ct. 2317, 2321, 90 L.Ed.2d 899 (1986).

*204Although the respondents failed to show that they or any other people were actually deterred from migrating or…