Do you need a driver&#39;s license to travel in the U.S.?
<p>In the U.S., the law that governs motor vehicles is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Traffic_and_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_Act" rel="nofollow noreferrer">National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act</a>.</p>
<p>But according to the Constitution;</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, &quot;The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Case #1: &quot;The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.&quot; <em>Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago</em>, <a href="https://casetext.com/case/chicago-coach-co-v-city-of-chicago" rel="nofollow noreferrer">169 NE 221</a>.</p>
<p>Case #2: &quot;The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.&quot; <em>Thompson v. Smith</em>, <a href="https://casetext.com/case/thompson-v-smith-24" rel="nofollow noreferrer">154 SE 579</a>.</p>
<p>Case #3: &quot;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.&quot; <em>Kent v. Dulles</em>, <a href="https://casetext.com/case/kent-v-dulles" rel="nofollow noreferrer">357 US 116, 125</a>.</p>
<p>Case #4: &quot;The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.&quot; <em>Shachtman v. Dulles</em> <a href="https://casetext.com/case/shachtman-v-dulles" rel="nofollow noreferrer">96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941</a>.</p>
<p>So, are you allowed to travel in a motor vehicle in the U.S. without a driver's license?</p>

<p>There is no basis for the view that requiring a driver's license is unconstitutional.</p>
<p>First, it's critical to realize that a right to travel has nothing whatsoever to do with licensing drivers. A right to travel does not in any way mean there's a right to travel in a particular way. Likewise, using a car does not mean you're traveling. <em>Schactman</em> is about the right to obtain a passport, which is a requirement to travel overseas. <em>Kent</em> is likewise about international travel.</p>
<p>Freedom of movement means the government cannot, without good cause (like being on parole), prevent you from traveling within the US, living where you choose, or working where you choose. Likewise, there's a right to international travel that means that without good cause, the government can't stop you from leaving the US or re-entering if you're a citizen. Requiring a drivers license to use public roads doesn't stop you from doing that -- there are other ways to travel.</p>
<p>The <em>Thompson v. Smith</em> decision explicitly supports the idea that requiring drivers licenses is allowed. To quote a more representative section from the <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366" rel="noreferrer">case</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<ol start="5">
<li><p>STREETS AND HIGHWAYS -- Right of Citizen of Travel and Transport Property -- Use of Ordinary Vehicles. -- 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. This right is not a mere privilege which a city may permit or prohibit at will.</p>
</li>
<li><p>STREETS AND HIGHWAYS -- Right of Citizen to Travel and Transport Property -- Use of Ordinary Vehicles -- Police Power. -- The right of a citizen to travel and transport property and to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day may, under the police power, be regulated by the city in the interest of public safety and welfare; but the city may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.</p>
</li>
<li><p>AUTOMOBILES -- Drivers' Permits -- Arbitrary Revocation. -- <strong>The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking under rules of general application permits to drive an automobile on its streets;</strong> but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to others of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.</p>
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>While <em>Chicago Motor Coach</em> doesn't seem to be available online, searching it finds other sites stating that the real issue was a commercial operator licensed by the State of Illinois, and whether Chicago, as a municipality within Illinois, could require them to also be permitted by the city. Another line from it seems to be &quot;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.&quot;</p>
<p>To quote more recent precedent, <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787.html" rel="noreferrer">Miller v. Reed</a> from the 9th Circuit (a federal court of appeals, not a state court) states that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous.   The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it.   What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(incidentally: Drivers licenses are not required by federal law. They are required by <em>state</em> laws.)</p>

<p>Yes, you are allowed to travel in a motor vehicle without a driver's license, as long as you are not driving the vehicle.</p>

<p>All 50 states have seen fit to enact <a href="http://traffic.findlaw.com/traffic-tickets/state-traffic-laws.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">traffic codes</a> pursuant to their <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">police power</a>. Such regulation has not been found to infringe upon the right of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Freedom of Movement</a>, aka the "right to travel."</p>

<p>Licensing requirements began in the early 1900's:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"No court after 1920 found the right to travel sufficient to strike
  down a driver license requirement." <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1772042" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Source</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here are a few federal cases supporting the right of states to regulate the highways:</p>

<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13681451034893205402" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915)</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by
  constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally
  destructive to the ways themselves . . . 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 . . . This is but an exercise of the police power
  uniformly recognized as belonging to the States and essential to the
  preservation of the health, safety and comfort of their citizens."</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10830406968771121547" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hess v. Pawloski 274 US 352 (1927)</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Motor vehicles are dangerous machines; and, even when skillfully and
  carefully operated, their use is attended by serious dangers to
  persons and property. In the public interest the State may make and
  enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote care on the part
  of all, residents and non-residents alike, who use its highways."</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8317960360812670712" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Reitz v. Mealey 314 US 33 (1941)</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"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. Any appropriate means
  adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its
  licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with
  due process."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(via <a href="http://pseudolaw.com/right-to-travel-united-states" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Is There A Right To Travel In The United States?</a>)</p>

<p>Normally, I would simply answer the question at hand, taking the words as they are posed and not questioning whether they were meant to say something other than their actual meaning. However, with regard to this question the author (if taken using the words as stated)  cites a <em>variety</em> of cases that stand for the proposition that travel is a right not a privilege, but yet simultaneously seeks to inquire  whether one can be <em>required to be be a licensed driver to merely travel</em>. This is odd to say the least, since the question itself seemingly answers the query. That perplexity makes me wonder (1) is the author talking about driving? If not, why ask what he/she already knows to be true, which is that you have a right to travel. There were a few answers already so I didn't bother to chime in, but since today the question lives on, I thought I would weigh in on some issues, if not an answer in an of itself.</p>

<p>Two things are clear: The right to travel is just that, a right, not a privilege. However, a driver's license is a privilege and not a right.</p>

<p>To begin, I think it is only fair to point out a couple of things that are (at least to me) a bit confusing about this question. First, when I initially read this question, I assumed the drafter meant "do you need a license to <em>drive</em>, not just travel", since the he clearly knows your right to travel is not merely a privilege but a fundamental right. As I mentioned, he has cited myriad cases in <em>his very question</em> that stand for this proposition. So can that really be the question?</p>

<p>Frankly, I think I would've assumed the question was intended to be about the right to drive, despite the use of the term travel, as I don't think there are many people who would entertain the notion that one may need to be a licensed driver in order to legally travel as a passenger. In the U.S., people travel every day that cannot drive for one reason or another. Clearly there are all manner of reasons for this... from disability, to  legal inability due to infancy, conviction, suspension, the elderly, and/or a whole host of other reasons; however, (almost) nobody would suggest that just because you cannot drive somehow limits your right to go somewhere when someone else is driving.</p>

<p>Whether the author meant drive vs. travel came up amongst a number of members both answering or commenting, however, the author never clarified his intention. Assuming people don't ask questions that cite the very answer they're seeking, I began thinking about it more.</p>

<p>Then I thought, did the author of this question, when <em>choosing</em> to use the term <em>motor vehicle</em>, intend to imply passenger travel in an <em>individual's</em> <em>private</em> motor vehicle, or, did he mean some other form of <em>mass/public transit</em>, or any/all of the above? </p>

<p>Next, I began to wonder about the use of the term <em>drivers license</em>. Is it possible the author was referring to identification (rather than a drivers license) in this scenario. Why? Because if the term <em>license</em> was intended, than the first issue is a non-starter  in that regardless of what you travel in/on, the analysis doesn't change - you have the right to travel without being a licensed driver. That is clear. Not only in the cases sited in the answers herein, but pursuant to article iv of the commerce clause, the right to interstate commerce necessitates the right to free travel. But where my confusion comes in, which is why I wonder if he potentially meant ID, is that again, in reading the question the author makes clear that he is well aware of the fundamental right to travel. However, you do not have an absolute right to travel without identification. Even under strict scrutiny, being able to identify a passenger, especially using public transit, having identification serves an overriding and legitimate public purpose (actually multiple purposes) and as such, would survive the strictest of judicial scrutiny. </p>

<p>Why am I pondering all of these clarifications?   Since taken at face value it's clear that the author already knows the answer to his question, I cannot help but wonder if we are missing the true meaning and there is really more to it that is either just missing or was somehow lost in translation. </p>

<p>I can see drivers licenses suffering from "the Kleenex" phenomenon. Just as people use Kleenex as synonymous with tissues, so do some use the word license interchangably with ID ("identification").  I remember as a college student heading out to the bars with my friends, and someone would inevitably ask "Everyone got their licenses?" This, despite the fact that many of our friends didn't drive, but they did have state issued identification cards so they could get into the bars! Many cities, like NYC, have full generations of residents who have NEVER had a license, because it's simply not practical to drive in a city that charges what most of us pay for a mortgage just for have a good parking space, there is nowhere to park if you drive away from your high-priced spot, traffic with the cab's is nuts, and the public transit system goes everywhere that you cannot walk to. </p>

<p>That said, it is difficult to assess who has the best answer when we don't know what was the intended query really is. This is all assuming he didn't just decide to ask a question he knew the answer to, and wanted to give his understanding of the law by citing cases in the question, so as to see if something unexpected would be written in an answer. Who knows! But that would be nearly as rare as thinking you could be legally required have a drivers license just to be a passenger in a car!</p>

<p>Anyway, If he meant do you need a license to legally drive, the answer is YES, and @Cpast and dw1 gave the best/correct answers IMHO, but those are mostly about regulating drivers (again, I too assumed this is what he meant, but only because of this discrepancy of form.</p>

<p>If he meant, do you need a license to legally travel in any moving vehicle, the answer is, "of course not" and his own question is the best source of (well, part of) why not.</p>

<p>But if the question was actually meaning to use the term Identification, then there is a whole other analysis to be done, and none of these answers are wholly adequate (and who will spend the time answering until we know!)</p>

<p>I have been both on holiday and on business in many foreign countries, including the USA. If there was any need to have a driver's license to be allowed to drive in any of these countries, I would have expected the travel agency to tell me about it. Sure enough, they always tell me that I need a passport, and usually tell me whether some visa is required. I have never, ever been told that a driver's license would be required to travel anywhere in the world. </p>

<p>In addition, it would be completely unreasonable to deny children who are not old enough to have a driver's license, or senior citizens who are too old, or anyone with an illness that prevents them from getting a driver's license, the right to travel in the USA. Think about blind people who can't get a driver's license. Do you think they wouldn't be allowed to travel? </p>

<p>No, you don't need a driver's license to travel in the USA on airplane, river boat, as a passenger on a train or a bus, or a taxi, or as a hitchhiker, or on bicycle or on foot. I even saw a movie some years ago about an elderly man who lost his driver's license and travelled on his lawn mower ("The Straight Story", 1999). You don't have to leave your husband or wife behind if they don't have a driver's license, they are free to ride in a car as a passenger. </p>

united-states driving motor-vehicle