Passports, travel, and the First Amendment
Earlier this month, as part of a lengthy and complex bill to reauthorize the US State Department, the Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL) revived a proposal that had been rejected but came close to passage in 2017 to authorize the Secretary of State to summarily deny or revoke the passport of any US citizen on the basis of an extrajudicial determination by the Secretary that a US citizen has “knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization”.
The proposal drew immediate condemnation on both due process and First Amendment grounds. “Provide material support” has been interpreted to include making or amplifying statements supporting the political goals of a banned organization — i.e., free speech.
Last week, during markup of the State Department reauthorization bill, the Committee on Foreign Affairs approved an amendment sponsored by Rep. Mast to remove the passport denial and revocation provisions he himself had introduced a week earlier.
We’re pleased that this trial balloon went down in flames so quickly. But we’re disturbed that it was even introduced.
If there’s any silver lining in this episode, it’s that it’s proved a teachable moment to articulate the relationship between passports, travel, and the First Amendment.
We’re especially pleased by the comment of Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX):
Travel abroad is a form of expression and association.
In saying this, Rep. Castro recognized that, as we’ve always argued, to travel is “to assemble”, and to do so is an act directly protected by the First Amendment guarantee of “the right of the people… to assemble”.