Thompson v. Smith is not a Supreme Court Case. So let’s Discuss The Right to Travel!

⸻

📚 Subject Summary: Thompson v. Smith and the “Right to Travel” Argument

🔍 Case Reference • Case Name: Thompson v. Smith • Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (not the United States Supreme Court) • Year: 1930 • Misconception: Many in the “right to travel” community incorrectly cite this as a U.S. Supreme Court case.

⸻

🧠 Key Legal Excerpt Used by Advocates

“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… It includes the right… to operate an automobile thereon for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege…”

• Interpretation by advocates: This statement is often cited as confirmation of a fundamental, unregulated right to travel and operate a vehicle without a license or registration. • Typical omission: They stop quoting at the favorable language and ignore the follow-up qualification.

⸻

⚖️ Full Context & Legal Nuance

The case goes on to clarify:

“The exercise of such a common right, the city may under its police power, regulate in the interest of public safety and welfare. But it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it…”

🧩 Proper Legal Interpretation: • Yes, travel is a right, and so is movement on public highways. • However, this right is subject to regulation under the police power of the state or city—especially for the sake of public safety. • That regulation includes driver’s licenses, vehicle registration, and road safety laws.

⸻

🛑 Common Misuses of This Case 1. Claiming it is U.S. Supreme Court authority: • It is not. It holds authority in Virginia, not nationally. 2. Ignoring the police power qualification: • The text clearly affirms municipal authority to regulate how this right is exercised. 3. Confusing rights with privileges: • The right to travel isn’t identical with the unlicensed use of modern motor vehicles, which are deemed regulated instrumentalities in commerce and public safety frameworks.

⸻

✝️ Moral and Social Framing

The speaker connects this issue to a broader cultural decline in legal respect, referencing:

“In the last days there would be iniquity… that word iniquity is lawlessness.”

This is used to underscore how some reject all forms of lawful authority, failing to balance individual rights with communal responsibility.

⸻

✅ Takeaway

Thompson v. Smith does not provide a legal loophole to reject licensing or registration. While it affirms that travel is a right, it also acknowledges the state’s power to regulate the mode and method of travel in the interest of public safety. Selectively quoting legal cases without full context can lead to misunderstanding and misapplication of the law.

⸻