I am not a lawyer but specifically, per the wiki linked in this comment chain, I think it would fall under the

>(for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native-born citizens

mentioned in Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999)

Please point to the controlling cases here. I haven't been able to find them.

Edit: ah sorry I replied to you downthread.

Would like to read more about this, can you provide a source?

So this is the only part of that wiki article that suggests you're right:

>The U.S. Supreme Court in Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868) declared that freedom of movement is a fundamental right and therefore a state cannot inhibit people from leaving the state by taxing them.

I'm having a hard time finding a controlling case that says states can't do the inverse, i.e. levy fees on those who want to move to their state. I don't have the time tonight to read the whole case and its references, but I'm happy to be proven wrong here. Levying a fee on people who move in seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do. After all, we all have to pay move-in fees when we lease a new apartment or buy a house.

The supreme court struck down the refusal to disperse welfare payments to new residents as unconstitutionally restricting freedom to travel. I gurantee you that taxing new residents would be struck down for the exact same reason.

>After all, we all have to pay move-in fees when we lease a new apartment or buy a house.

That has no bearing on this at all. Private companies are free to do many things the government can't.