?:reviewBody
|
-
For years now, impressive-looking texts and documents have been circulated online under titles such as U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary to Drive Automobile on Public Highways/Streets, implying that some recent judicial decision has struck down the requirement that motorists possess state-issued driver's licenses in order to legally operate vehicles on public roads. One example of this claim opens with an out-of-context quote before launching into a potpourri of case excerpts from the Supreme Court and lower courts: However, a full reading of the referenced case, Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 — Va: Supreme Court 1930 (available via Google Scholar) presents that inaugural quote in an entirely different context: In other words, the court held that although the use of public roads is a right which citizens enjoy, local authorities may nonetheless regulate such use (including imposing a requirement that motor vehicle operators obtain licenses) so long as such regulations are reasonable, not arbitrary, and apply equally to everyone. Another bit of context elided from the example article is the fact that in when the referenced decision was handed down by the Supreme Court of Virginia in 1930, several of the 48 states did not yet require motorists to possess driver's licenses to operate motor vehicles on public roads. Moreover, fewer than one in five Americans owned a car in the 1930s (a demographic that saw little upswing until after the end of World War II). Therefore, regulatory issues stemming from broader vehicle ownership and more modern vehicle operating conditions were still decades in the future at the time the ruling was issued. No recent Supreme Court ruling has in any way challenged the legality of a requirement for driver's licenses. Driver's licenses are issued state by state (with varying requirements), not at the federal level or according to federal requirements. And driving without a license is indeed illegal in all 50 states.
(en)
|