vehicles, such as trucks, could also be driven off-road, trucks are occasionally needed for off-road driving for such legitimate purposes as the maintenance of the park grounds and the transportation of large and/or cumbersome machinery. Clearly, off-road motorcycling would serve no such purposes. Thus, like in Wroblewski Shanks has not alleged facts sufficient to overcome the presumption of rationality coupled with a readily apparent justification for the ban. Therefore, the Court will GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss Shanks’ equal protection claim. C. Substantive Due Process In determining whether there is a fundamental right to intrastate travel, courts have also looked to the substantive branch of the Due Process clause. See Lutz v. City of York, 899 F.2d 255 (3rd Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); see also Jonathan Hangartner, Comment, The
holding that false statements are constitutionally protected holding right to travel emanates from concept of substantive due process recognizing that before due process guarantees are implicated there must be a deprivation by the government of constitutionally protected interest recognizing that a defendants right to be heard in criminal proceedings prior to sentencing is constitutionally protected holding that while there is not a constitutionally protected right of intrastate travel under equal protection there is a constitutionally protected right to intrastate travel arising from the due process clause