Trump's consistent weekend trips to Mar-a-Lago in Florida are apparently wreaking havoc on the economy of the city it's in, Palm Beach.

This is of course due to the fact that his visit, due to his current status, requires about half the city to be shut down for security reasons. With this occurring every weekend resulting in quite a few financial problems for the large and small businesses of this tourism based coastal city, which is bad, very bad, bigly.

Thus, I must ask; can the state of Florida pass and enforce legislation that would stop, or at least limit, Trump's ability to visit? Or at least demand compensation for the financial damages he's inflicting; so they prevent him from, you know, accidentally ruining the city's economy?

  • 3
    Legal action for reimbursement might be possible. NYC is going through the same thing. money.cnn.com/2017/03/08/news/trump-tower-security-costs As summer approaches, his visits to Florida will probably decrease I would think. Not that you get much tourism in the summer, but just pointing that out.
    – userLTK
    Mar 29, 2017 at 0:25
  • 4
    They can't ban a person, but they could pass a law that makes it impossible for Trump to visit, e.g. a motor vehicle law that prohibits motorcades.
    – John Wu
    Mar 29, 2017 at 2:18
  • 2
    @userLTK - Actually Summer is a busy tourist season in Florida. Early spring(march-april excepting spring break) and early fall(sept-oct) are the slow times. Mar 29, 2017 at 18:07
  • 1
    Locals can pass laws all they want, but by the constitution federal law has supremacy. If somewhere in the US Code, the strength of Presidential security is mentioned: limits from local law vaporize.
    – Paulb
    Mar 29, 2017 at 22:14

2 Answers 2


Generally speaking, no. In order to do that you would have to

  1. Charge him with a crime
  2. Give him due process to refute the charges
  3. Have a legal authority (i.e. judge) find him guilty of said crimes and impose some sort of ban

Due process is a cornerstone of American law. A blanket ban on a person would be unconstitutional.

The 14th amendment states

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  • 2
    What case law do you know of that supports this? Most that I'm familiar with when it comes to the right to travel between states lays out the substantive rather than procedural standards for infringement on such a right, and bases that analysis on the privileges and immunities clause rather than the due process clause.
    – Publius
    Mar 28, 2017 at 22:28
  • 1
    @Avi I don't know of any direct on-point cases to cite. The closest I can find was Trop v Dulles, but the central issue there was citizenship, which is an 8th amendment issue. But many states do allow for banning a person who has been convicted
    – Machavity
    Mar 28, 2017 at 23:16
  • 2
    I'm not sure what citizenship has to do with any of this; obviously Florida cannot stop Trump from being a US citizen, but that isn't the question here. Banning a person from a county is more on point, though I don't know of any Constitutional case law discussing that.
    – Publius
    Mar 28, 2017 at 23:38
  • 1
    A law to ban a person from a county would almost certainly be considered a bill of attainder and thus disallowed by Article I section 10 of the constitution Mar 29, 2017 at 22:43

State government can't ban another state's citizen. Article IV.2.1 (the "Comity Clause") governs:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Corfield v. Coryell (1823) first affirmed the right to travel through states under the Comity Clause. Later case law, including the infamous Scott v. Sandford (1857), affirmed that the Comity Clause gives "state citizens, when in other states, the right to travel, the right to sojourn, the right to free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to keep and bear arms."

Most recently, in Zobel v. Williams (1982), the Supreme Court upheld this reading. Sandra Day O'Connor explained:

Article IV's Privileges and Immunities Clause has enjoyed a long association with the rights to travel and migrate interstate. The Clause derives from Art. IV of the Articles of Confederation. The latter expressly recognized a right of "free ingress and regress to and from any other State," in addition to guaranteeing "the free inhabitants of each of these states . . . [the] privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States." While the Framers of our Constitution omitted the reference to "free ingress and regress," they retained the general guaranty of "privileges and immunities." Charles Pinckney, who drafted the current version of Art. IV, told the Convention that this Article was "formed exactly upon the principles of the 4th article of the present Confederation." Commentators, therefore, have assumed that the Framers omitted the express guaranty merely because it was redundant, not because they wished to excise the right from the Constitution. Early opinions by the Justices of this Court also traced a right to travel or migrate interstate to Art. IV's Privileges and Immunities Clause....Similarly, in Paul v. Virginia, the Court found that one of the "undoubt[ed]" effects of the Clause was to give "the citizens of each State . . . the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them...."

Wikipedia has an unusually cogent article on the subject of freedom of movement.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .