Q: Does Buck V Kuykendall establish right to travel as long as you aren’t using the highways for buisiness?

A: Buck held that a state may not require a license or fee to engage in interstate commerce using federal highways for the purpose of limiting competition.

It did not in any way hold that roads can only be regulated for those engaged in commerce.

It discussed that states could regulate roads for purposes of safety and to raise revenue.

So states can require licenses and motor vehicle inspections for purposes of safety and can impose vehicle registration fees or tolls to raise revenue. It doesn’t matter whether a vehicle is being used for commerce or personal reasons.

The issue in Buck was that the State of Washington was impermissibly interfering with interstate commerce by limiting competitors, in that case by denying Buck a permit to operate.

A: Buck v. Kuykendall (1925) is a Supreme Court case that addressed the right to travel and the regulation of highways. The case focused on whether a state could refuse a license to a private carrier who wanted to operate a bus line, not on the general right to travel for private individuals. The Court ruled that states could not use their regulatory powers to prohibit interstate travel or commerce under the guise of protecting public welfare, particularly when it comes to interstate commerce. This decision reaffirmed the right to travel but within the context of interstate commerce, not necessarily private travel.

The decision in Buck v. Kuykendall did not overrule Hendrick v. Maryland (1915). In Hendrick, the Court upheld the right of states to regulate highways and vehicles under their police powers, including both commercial and private vehicles. This means states can impose reasonable regulations, such as requiring licenses and registration, to ensure public safety and welfare on the roads.

So, while Buck v. Kuykendall did highlight the importance of free travel, it does not mean that states cannot regulate private travel on highways. It clarified the limits of state regulation concerning interstate commerce but did not establish an unrestricted right to use the roads for private purposes without regulation. Both cases coexist in legal understanding: states can regulate road usage, but such regulation cannot unduly burden interstate commerce or travel.