which forbids out-of-state couples from traveling to Massachusetts in order to avoid the laws of their states, is presumed constitutional and is being evenhandedly applied. The plaintiffs have not met their heavy burden of overcoming the presumption of constitutionality which attaches to the statute. Privileges and Immunities Clause The plaintiffs’ principal challenge is made under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. 4, §2 of the United States Constitution, which provides that “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” The Clause “establishes a norm of comity . . . that is to prevail among the States with respect to their treatment of each other’s residents.” Matter of Jadd, 391 Mass. 227, 228 (1984) (<HOLDING>), quoting Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518,
holding that a supreme judicial court rule that an attorney seeking admission to the massachusetts bar must be a resident of the commonwealth violates the privileges and immunities clause of the united states constitution holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states holding that the contracts clause article i section 10 clause 1 to the united states constitution does not apply to the actions of the federal government holding the exclusion did not violate the equal protection clause of the wyoming constitution or the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution holding that our courts are bound by the united states supreme courts interpretation of the federal constitution