RIGHT TO TRAVEL
The Privileges and Immunities Clause says that a citizen of one state is entitled to the privileges in another state, from which a right to travel to that other state may be inferred.[10] Under this clause such an internal passport which is in use in a small minority of countries, would be unconstitutional.[11] Indeed, in the 1982 case of Zobel v Williams, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that the Privileges and Immunities Clause plausibly includes a right of interstate travel. In that case, Justice 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 “undoubted” effects of the Clause was to give “the citizens of each State . . . the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them....”
Despite scholarly and judicial opinions acknowledging that the Privileges and Immunities Clause may include a right to travel, the issue is not without controversy.
During the coronavirus outbreak in the United States in April, 2020, Raleigh attorney S.C. Kitchen, working for six Outer Banks property owners, filed a federal lawsuit against Dare County, North Carolina, claiming their constitutional rights had been violated by an emergency order preventing them from accessing their homes. The lawsuit contended that the prohibition on the entry of out-of-state property owners violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The county settled with the homeowners in July, 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause
Ingress, egress, and regress are legal terms referring respectively to entering, leaving, and returning to a property or country.
The term also refers to the rights of a person to do so as regards a specific property.
As always, there is a workaround. The airlines operate under FAA and OSHA oversight. They will be given a mandate to ensure protection against exposure of air and ground crews.
Airlines will be given the choice of requiring vax proof, or testing each and every passenger.
Passengers always have the option of hiring a charter if they want to fly without a vax, which gives a fig leaf that this is not a ban on interstate travel.