Uncovered judgment

Sultana Freeman has lost her claim that having an unveiled drivers license photo would infringe on her freedom of religion.

Thorpe said the state “has a compelling interest in protecting the public from criminal activities and security threats,” and that photo identification “is essential to promote that interest.”

Thorpe also noted that while Freeman “most likely poses no threat to national security,” others may take advantage of a ruling in her favor to threaten lives.”

The full court order can be found here.

One aspect of the case worth mentioning is that the court reasonably declined to rule on whether the whole veiled/unveiled thing was important in Islam (it’s been noted by others that, for example, women do not take veiled drivers license photos in Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates).

At trial, Plaintiff, her husband, and an expert witness testified to the sincerity of Plaintiff’s religious beliefs. The State attempted to counter with an expert on Islamic law, who testified that most Muslims do not veil to the extent that Plaintiff does, and that she is in a small minority of Salafeeha Muslim women who refuse to remove their veils when they have their pictures taken for identification. The Court, however, finds it immaterial whether Plaintiff is in the majority or minority of any given sect of practicing Muslims. The Court will not choose between competing experts on Islam to determine whether Plaintiff’s religious belief is justifiable or reasonable. This Court finds that Plaintiff is motivated by a sincerely-held religious belief to remain veiled.

Nonetheless, the court found that the state, by offering various accomodations (e.g., a private photography session with women only in the room) was “satisfying its compelling interest in public safety via the least restrictive means available.”