The Right to Travel and Driver Licensing: What the Cases Say
The right to travel is a recognized liberty. The courts that quoted it in highway cases still upheld licensing, registration and for-hire regulation, and modern courts hold that the right to travel does not include driving without a license.
The right to travel in Supreme Court decisions
This page is for education, information and intellectual discussion. It explains what each authority says and what each court decided. It does not tell anyone to use these arguments, and it is not legal advice.
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)
The right to travel is a part of the “liberty” of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta.
What the case was about: The State Department refused passports to people because of alleged Communist beliefs. The Court held that Congress had not given the Secretary of State that power. The case is about passports and international travel. It does not discuss driving or vehicles.
How it applies: The quotation is accurate. Affidavits that quote page 127 sometimes leave out the middle sentence, “We need not decide the extent to which it can be curtailed.”
Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999)
The “right to travel” discussed in our cases embraces at least three different components. It protects the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another State, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State, and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State.
What the case was about: California paid new residents lower welfare benefits during their first year. The Court struck the rule down because it treated new citizens of the state worse than longer-term residents.
How it applies: This is the Court’s modern definition of the right to travel. It describes movement between states and equal treatment, not a particular way of getting there.
Chicago Motor Coach v. City of Chicago (Ill. 1929)
Chicago Motor Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22 (1929)
Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. Where one undertakes, however, to make a greater use of the public highways for his own private gain, as by the operation of a stage coach …
Chicago Motor Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200 (1929)
What the case was about: A bus company held a state certificate to run buses for hire. The City of Chicago tried to require a separate city franchise. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the legislature had given that control to the state Commerce Commission, so the city could not exclude the buses.
How it applies: The first sentence is quoted accurately in most affidavits. The sentence that follows says the state may prohibit for-hire use of the highways. The same opinion says the legislature may prohibit automotive vehicles on highways by general law and may regulate speed and use. Another quotation often credited to this case (“No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage … Travel is not a privilege requiring, licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances”) does not appear anywhere in the opinion, including the dissents.
Thompson v. Smith (Va. 1930)
Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579 (1930)
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day …
What the case was about: Lynchburg let its police chief revoke a driving permit whenever, “in his opinion,” the driver was unfit. The Virginia Supreme Court held that clause void because it gave the chief power with no standard. The court said the city could still regulate driving, including by requiring permits.
How it applies: This passage is real and is often quoted accurately. A second version that adds “is not a mere privilege which a city [or State] may prohibit or permit at will” rearranges the court’s words. Some affidavits also credit Thompson with saying that judges enforcing statutes act only “ministerially.” The opinion does not say that. Its only statement about a judge is that a municipal judge reviewing a permit reinstatement acts as an administrative officer.
For-hire use of the highways
Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307 (1925)
A citizen may have, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon them by auto vehicle. But he has no right to make the highways his place of business …
What the case was about: Washington refused an interstate bus company a certificate because the route was already served. The Court struck down the refusal under the Commerce Clause because its purpose was to block competition.
How it applies: These words are the Court’s summary of the state’s argument, which the Court then called “not sound.” The Court also said safety and road-conservation rules are valid.
Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U.S. 251 (1932)
It is well established law that the highways of the state are public property; that their primary and preferred use is for private purposes; and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary, which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit.
What the case was about: Texas required contract trucking companies to get permits and follow rate rules. The Court upheld the law.
How it applies: “Private purposes” here means ordinary personal use, which the Court treated as the preferred use of the roads. The case does not hold that personal use is free from regulation.
State ex rel. Schafer v. City of Spokane, 109 Wash. 360, 186 P. 864 (1920)
The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus.
State ex rel. Schafer v. City of Spokane, 109 Wash. 360 (1920)
What the case was about: A jitney bus operator asked the court to order Spokane to issue a license. The court refused, so the city could deny the license.
How it applies: The court was quoting Ex parte Dickey (W. Va. 1915). The passage supported the city’s power over for-hire licenses.
Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924) and Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Commission, 271 U.S. 583 (1926)
What the case was about: Packard upheld a New York law requiring for-hire passenger vehicles to carry a bond or liability insurance. Frost held that California could not force a private contract trucker to become a common carrier as a condition of using the roads.
How it applies: Frost is the leading “unconstitutional conditions” case: the state may not require a person to give up a constitutional right as the price of a privilege. Neither case addresses licensing of private drivers.
Supreme Court cases on licensing and registration
Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (1915)
In the absence of national legislation covering the subject a State may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers …
What the case was about: A nonresident driver was convicted under Maryland’s motor vehicle law for driving there without complying with it. The Court affirmed the conviction.
How it applies: Hendrick is the leading Supreme Court decision on driver licensing and vehicle registration.
Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160 (1916) and Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33 (1941)
The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of regulation apparent. The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers.
What the case was about: Kane affirmed the conviction of a New York resident who drove through New Jersey without registering his car there. Reitz upheld New York’s suspension of a driver’s license after an unpaid accident judgment.
Modern decisions on the right to travel and driving
State and federal appellate courts have addressed the right to travel argument directly. Each decision below affirmed a licensing or registration requirement.
- Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 1999) — “Miller does not have a fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle, and the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede his right to interstate travel by denying him a driver’s license.”
- City of Salina v. Wisden, 737 P.2d 981 (Utah 1987) — “The right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions does not include the ability to ignore laws governing the use of public roadways.”
- State v. Skurdal, 767 P.2d 304 (Mont. 1988) — the right to travel “remains wholly separate from the right or privilege to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways.”
- City of Bismarck v. Stuart, 546 N.W.2d 366 (N.D. 1996) — “No court has ever held that it is an impermissible infringement upon a citizen’s constitutional Right to Travel” to require a valid operator’s license.
Other authorities quoted in right to travel affidavits
Ex parte Archy, 9 Cal. 147 (1858)
… the right of transit through each State, with every species of property known to the Constitution of the United States, and recognized by that paramount law, is secured by that instrument to each citizen …
What the case was about: This was a slavery case. A Mississippi slaveholder brought Archy, an enslaved young man, to California. The court used the “traveler” definition to decide whether the slaveholder could keep him while passing through a free state. “Every species of property” refers to enslaved people. The court ordered Archy returned to the slaveholder.
How it applies: Affidavits usually cite this case as “9 C. 47.” The correct citation is 9 Cal. 147.
Ex parte Hoffert, 34 S.D. 271, 148 N.W. 20 (1914)
Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled.
What the case was about: South Dakota charged a $6 yearly registration fee on motor vehicles that used public highways. The court upheld the fee.
How it applies: The “use” classification separated ordinary automobiles, which paid the fee because they used county roads, from trucks and delivery wagons used mostly inside cities. It is not a private-versus-commercial distinction.
State v. Johnson, 75 Mont. 240, 243 P. 1073 (1926)
What the case was about: A man ran a bus line for hire without a license. The court upheld Montana’s motor-carrier licensing law and sent the case back for a new trial.
How it applies: The court said a provision letting the commission “may exempt” occasional non-commercial rural transport should be read as “must exempt,” because those people were outside the law anyway. It concerned for-hire carriers only.
Desser v. City of Wichita, 96 Kan. 820 (1915); Ligare v. Chicago, 139 Ill. 46 (1891); Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607 (Tex. Civ. App. 1919)
What the case was about: Desser upheld Wichita’s jitney license fees. Ligare was an eminent domain dispute over railroad tracks. Boone stopped an oil well from being drilled in a county road.
How it applies: The sentences these affidavits attribute to Desser, Ligare and Boone do not appear in those opinions. Ligare and Boone quote similar language from older sources about keeping streets open for public travel.
The vehicle code sections
California Vehicle Code § 260 defines a “commercial vehicle.” Subdivision (b) says passenger vehicles not used to carry people for hire are not commercial vehicles. That section only defines the word. Registration is required by § 4000(a)(1), which applies to any vehicle driven on a highway, and a driver’s license is required by § 12500(a).
The federal definition in 18 U.S.C. § 31(a)(6), which describes a motor vehicle “used for commercial purposes,” begins with the words “In this chapter.” It applies to the federal crimes in Title 18, Chapter 2, such as destroying a motor vehicle used in commerce. It does not define motor vehicles for state licensing or registration.
Summary: The right to travel is a recognized liberty. The courts that quoted it in highway cases still upheld licensing, registration and for-hire regulation, and modern courts hold that the right to travel does not include driving without a license.
How to check the right to travel claim yourself
The best test of right to travel is simple: look for a court that accepted it. We have not found one in the reported decisions. Next, read the actual law the claim points to. For example, check the statute, the UCC section or the constitutional text it cites. Then compare that text with what the claim says it means. For a real problem with a debt, a court case or a tax bill, a licensed attorney can explain your actual options. Our directory is a good place to start.
Sources and further reading
Official sources used on this page:
Related reading on Lawtopolis:
Sources
- Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)
- Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999)
- Chicago Motor Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200 (1929)
- Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 (1930)
- Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307 (1925)
- Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U.S. 251 (1932)
- Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (1915)
- Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33 (1941)
- Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 1999)
Official sources:
tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usre…
tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usre…
static.case.law/ill/337/cases/0200-01.json
static.case.law/va/155/cases/0367-01.json
static.case.law/f3d/176/cases/1202-01.json
Sources last reviewed: 2026-10-23
Lawtopolis provides legal information and education, not legal advice. Using this site does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws and court rules vary by jurisdiction and change over time; verify every authority against the official source and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction about your situation.