Dickerson V. Gretna Case Study

On December 22nd, 2005, a class action lawsuit, Dickerson v. Gretna was filed on behalf of those blocked from crossing the CCC bridge after Katrina. The suit, after two supplementing amending complaints, alleged violations of the constitutional right to travel under the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Commerce Clause, due process and equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure, and the Eight Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. The court ruled on a motion to dismiss on March 30th, 2007. The City of Gretna sought dismissal under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a federal claim. The court relied heavily on the holding of Wright, and granted the motion to dismiss relative to the claim that intrastate travel rights were violated. The court held, “while there is no doubt that a fundamental right of interstate travel exists, the Supreme Court has not ruled on whether a right of intrastate travel exists. This Court declines to find that there is a …show more content…
However, the facts of the two cases are so completely different that the court should have gone further in its analysis and relied on other sources of law. Wright dealt with a residency requirement for municipal employment. Thus, it was by any definition a “right to travel” case. It implicated the right to move and live where one wishes. It made sense for Wright to rely heavily on interstate travel precedent of Shapiro and Dunn, because those cases also dealt with durational residency requirements that implicated the exact same right to move and live where one wishes. Dickerson, meanwhile, presented a completely different factual context. The Dickerson Court should have recognized that the right to cross the bridge to escape a disaster was not the same “travel” right that was implicated in Shapiro, Dunn, or