In Schatz, the Minnesota supreme court considered the interesting question of the right to interstate travel as it affects workers’ compensation. While we know that durational residence requirements for welfare benefits and medical care are likely to be found to be unconstitutional, the US courts have to date not greatly explored where other conditions of social security, workers compensation or welfare schemes may impinge on the right to interstate travel. In order to set the groundwork, Part 1 of this note sets out the Supreme Court’s decisions concerning benefits and the right to travel, focusing on the aspects of most relevance to Schatz - in particular, the Constitutional basis of and protections for the right to travel. Part 2 outlines a number of cases in which state and federal courts have considered issues concerning workers’ compensation and the right to travel. Part 3 outlines the facts and issues of the Schatz case in which it was argued that a rule of the Minnesota workers compensation scheme, which treated workers who received medical care outside the state in a different manner to whose receiving in-state care, was in breach of the right to travel recognized in the US Constitution. Part 4 outlines the court’s ruling. Unfortunately, the court’s decision – although arguably correct as to outcome – throws little light on the correct manner to analyze these issues. Part 5 discusses and analyses the implications of the court’s approaches and highlights the fundamental weaknesses of the Supreme Court’s analysis in this area.