Other Right to Travel Names

---

The constitutionally protected right to travel has been called many names by multiple different justices from the U.S. Supreme Court and by other state courts as well as by statutes from state legislation. Below is a list of a portion of those names out of published opinions from the U.S. Supreme Court:

right to liberty - Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961)

the right to travel - Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)

freedom to travel - Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)

the right of locomotion - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186 (1900) 

the right to free ingress and Egress - Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941)

the right of free movement - Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941)

the right to pass freely from State to State - Justice Moody in Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78  (1908)

the right of passing through a State - Crandall v. State of Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1867)   

 the liberty to go when and where one will - Coppage v. State of Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)   

the freedom of movement - City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999)

right to remove from one place to another according to inclination - City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999)

"We recently held that the undefined ‘liberty’ in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment includes freedom to travel. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125-127, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 1118—1119, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204. Cf. *517 Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 160, 177, 178, 62 S.Ct. 164, 169, 86 L.Ed. 119 (concurring opinion)." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961)

"The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the 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." Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)

"In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)

“Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.” Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186 (1900)

"The conclusion that the right of free movement is a right of national citizenship stands on firm historical ground. If a state tax on that movement, as in the Crandall case, is invalid, a fortiori a state statute which obstructs or in substance prevents that movement must fall." Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941) 

“The right to move freely from State to State is an incident of national citizenship protected by the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against state interference. Mr. Justice Moody in Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 97, stated, “Privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States … are only such as arise out of the nature and essential character of the National Government, or are specifically granted or secured to all citizens or persons by the Constitution of the United States.” And went on to state that one of those rights of national citizenship was “the right to pass freely from State to State.” Id. P.97.” Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941)

“…Thus it is plain that the right of free ingress and egress rises to a higher constitutional dignity than that afforded by state citizenship.” Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941)

“The court held it unconstitutional, saying: ‘The right to follow any lawful vocation and to make contracts is as completely within the protection of the Constitution as the right to hold property free from unwarranted seizure, or the liberty  to go when and where one will.” Coppage v. State of Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)   

"On the other hand, as the United States recognizes, the freedom to loiter for innocent purposes is part of the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.19 We have expressly identified this “right to remove from one place to another according to inclination” as “an attribute of personal liberty” protected by the Constitution. Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186 (1900); see also Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 164, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972).20 *54 Indeed, it is apparent **1858 that an individual's decision to remain in a public place of his choice is as much a part of his liberty as the freedom of movement inside frontiers that is “a part of our heritage” Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204 (1958), or the right to move “to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct” identified in Blackstone's Commentaries. 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 130 (1765).21" City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999)

CASE CITATIONS

Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941)

Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961)

Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)

Crandall v. State of Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1867)   

Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186 (1900)

Coppage v. State of Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)   

Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)

City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999)

RIGHT TO TRAVEL -  STATUTORY NAMES 

Washington State's legislative or statutory name is provided below, for all other states

GO TO A SEARCH ENGINE SUCH AS GOOGLE.COM AND TYPE IN THE NAME OF YOUR STATE FOLLOWED BY THE WORDS 'PUBLIC VEHICULAR TRAVEL'.  Most states place this information in the definition of 'highway' or 'public highway'. Some of the state's statutory definitions will pop right up and some definitions you will have to do some more research. Nearly all of the 50 states refer to the right to travel as public vehicular travel, some say 'public vehicular traffic' or just 'vehicular travel'. Washington state uses the phrase 'public vehicular travel':

Title 47 Public Highways and Transportation  RCW 47.04.010  Definitions.  (11) "Highway." Every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the state of Washington open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns;

For the critics who visit the page and argue that title 47 is not the motor vehicle code, read the home page or the two following statutes RCW 46.98.020 Provisions to be construed in pari materia and RCW 47.98.020 Provisions to be construed in pari materia. Both titles state that titles 46 and titles 47 are to be construed in pari materia, which means construed or considered together as one chapter.

RCW 46.98.020 Provisions to be construed in pari materia.                                                       

The provisions of this title shall be construed in pari materia even though as a matter of prior legislative history they were not originally enacted in the same statute. The provisions of this title shall also be construed in pari materia with the provisions of Title 47 RCW, and with other laws relating to highways, roads, streets, bridges, ferries. And see RCW 47.98.020 Provisions to be construed in pari materia.

Pari Materia. Latin. Of the same matter; on the same subject; as, laws pari materia must be construed with reference to each other. Bac.Abr."Statute," I, 3; Dupont v. Mills, Del., 196 A. 168, 177, 119 A.L.R. 174.  Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition page 1270