United States v. Guest

Justice Harlan concurred in part and dissented in part. Harlan noted that the majority's decision to hold that the right to travel is protected against private interference is questionable. Harlan felt it "either unwise or impermissible so to read the Constitution." He noted that nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to travel, but that the right to travel is an aspect of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause. That clause refers only to governmental action, so it would not apply to United States v. Guest.

Harlan added that it is arguable whether conspiracy to discriminate in public accommodations, thus impeding interstate commerce, is dealt with under sec. 241, unaided by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Because Congress can legislate in this area, "it seems unnecessary . . . to strain to find a dubious constitutional right."