Supreme Court and State Travel Restrictions: A Shifting Legal Landscape

Recent legal battles and evolving state policies have created a complex landscape surrounding travel restrictions based on state laws. This article examines key cases, including Alabama v. California and the history of state-imposed travel bans, particularly those targeting states with differing social and political stances.

The Alabama v. California Case

In March 2025, the Supreme Court denied a motion for leave to file a complaint in Alabama v. California (Case No. 22o158). The case centered on whether states could be enjoined from seeking liability or equitable relief based on emissions or energy policies in other states. Justice Thomas dissented from the denial, joined by Justice Alito. The core issue revolved around states attempting to hold other states accountable for their environmental or energy-related actions. SCOTUSblog provides detailed coverage of the case proceedings, including filings and arguments.

California’s Restrictions on State-Funded Travel

California has a history of restricting state-funded and state-sponsored travel to states deemed to have discriminatory legislation. In June 2017, then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced travel restrictions for Alabama, Kentucky, South Dakota, and Texas (California Attorney General’s Office). This action was taken in response to laws perceived as discriminatory.

Specific Laws Prompting Restrictions (2017)

• Alabama (HB 24): This legislation raised concerns about preventing qualified LGBTQ individuals from adopting or serving as foster parents.
• Kentucky (SB 17): This bill potentially allowed discrimination against students based on sexual orientation or gender identity in colleges and K-12 schools.
• South Dakota (SB 149): This law raised concerns about preventing qualified LGBTQ couples from adopting or serving as foster parents.

Historical Context and AB 1887

California’s actions were rooted in Assembly Bill 1887 (AB 1887), which provided the framework for restricting state travel based on discriminatory laws. Attorney General Becerra emphasized that California would not tolerate discrimination against LGBTQ community members.

State Abbreviations

When referencing states in written communication, it’s key to adhere to proper abbreviation guidelines. For example, one should write “Goshen, N.Y.,” rather than “Goshen, New York” (Williams College Office of Communications). However, certain states, such as Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Ohio, and Texas, should not be abbreviated.

The legal and political landscape surrounding state travel restrictions remains dynamic. The Alabama v. California case highlights the ongoing tensions between states with differing legal and policy priorities.