[Right_Wing_Madman]

Haig v Agee

There's nothing in the Supreme's Court decision that states foreign travel is a "privilege" for US citizens. Only that the Executive branch has the authority to revoke an individual passport if there is a likelihood of "serious damage" to national security or foreign policy.

"The Court noted Congress's historical recognition of 'Executive authority to withhold passports on the basis of substantial reasons of national security and foreign policy.' The Court further held that because the regulations were limited to cases in which there was a likelihood of 'serious damage' to foreign policy"

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1980/80-83

[BobL]

“in which there was a likelihood of ‘serious damage’ to foreign policy””

Considering that the Official US Foreign Policy seems to be getting into a Nuclear War with Russia, I do think that the US government could make the case that Ritter is (or could be) doing ‘serious damage’ to that objective.

Hate to say it, but if Ritter’s objective is peace in Ukraine, then it’s easy to see how the primary objective of US Foreign Policy, starting World War 3 against Russia, is endangered by Ritter leaving the US.

[LukeL]

Define serious damage. It is an arbitrary term. Also does that right to international travel extend to other countries accepting you? Does an airline have to allow you to board? What if you are a convicted felon?