Mrs. Sultaana Freeman, a devout Muslim,
refused to remove her full-face veil in order to
be photographed for her Florida driver’s license.
Florida, in turn, denied her a license. Her case
epitomizes the conflict between the right of the
government to maintain security and the right of
individuals to exercise their religion freely. Here,
an evidence tag is seen on a Quran that was
submitted as part of Mrs. Freeman’s pending
court case appealing the denial of her license.
In January 2002, the State of Florida revoked the driver’s license of Mrs. Sultaana Freeman. But what was her offense? Had she killed
someone when driving while intoxicated, or had she received an excessive number of reckless driving citations? Nothing of the sort. Mrs.
Freeman, in accordance with her religious tradition, had refused to allow her driver’s photo to be taken in a manner that revealed her
uncovered face. In so doing she initiated a legal proceeding that encompassed such diverse issues as free exercise of religion; national
security in light of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America; the immediate safety needs of Florida’s Department of Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicles; and the degree to which this woman might have been singled out for discrimination because of her Muslim faith.
The story began during the winter of 2002—just a few months after the terrorist attacks and during a time when security concerns were at
their highest and anger and fear were directed at radical elements within the Muslim community. Mrs. Freeman, a thirty-five-year-old mother
of two from Winter Park, would not agree to be photographed without her niqab, a full-face veil revealing only the eyes that is worn by
many traditional Muslim women. During a three-day non-jury trial held in Orlando in May 2003, Mrs. Freeman argued that it was a violation
of her religious beliefs to expose her face to strangers or to men outside her immediate family. The state of Florida counter-argued that the
government had a compelling interest in promoting public safety, and that this interest was served by providing law enforcement officials
with full-face photos on driver’s licenses in order to quickly verify a person’s identity. The state even offered to allow Mrs. Freeman to lift
her veil in a closed room in the presence of a female photographer, but the offer was refused. Religious principles are religious principles.
In a sixteen-page opinion, Florida circuit court judge Janet Thorpe ruled in favor of the state of Florida. After agreeing with the state’s
arguments about the need for law officers to easily and accurately verify a person’s identity, the judge went on to speculate about new
safety concerns in light of the post-9/11 world. While conceding that Mrs. Freeman “most likely poses no threat to national security,” the
jurist speculated about the future possibility of terrorists pretending “to ascribe to religious beliefs in order to carry out activities that would
threaten lives.” What about the contention that Mrs. Freeman was being singled out for special, egregious treatment that would not be given
to individuals who came from America’s more traditional, mainstream religions? Not so, contended Judge Thorpe. She stated: “This court would
rule the same way for anyone—Christian, Jew, Buddhist, atheist—who wished to have his or her driver’s license identification photo taken
while wearing anything—ski mask, costume mask, religious veil, hood—which cloaks all facial features except the eyes.”
Responding to Judge Thorpe’s decision, Howard Simon, executive director of Florida’s American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said: “Today’s
ruling runs counter to the most basic principles of religious freedom that give everyone—including members of minority religious communities
as well as majority Christian faiths— the right to practice and worship as they choose.”
This factual account reveals much about the United States and the rule of law, and it suggests themes that we will articulate throughout
much of this first unit:
How should individuals respond when obeying the law violates deeply held moral or religious beliefs? Depending on how one views a
particular question, can it be at the same time a local issue, a federal question, and a matter that is part of a worldwide clash of interests?
How much discretion do law enforcement officials and judges possess and to what degree is the exercise of their discretion a function of their
own backgrounds and personal values?
Assignment #1
DUE: __________________
Sultanna Freeman
v. State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (2003)
Outcome: Judge Janet C. Thorpe ruled against the Plaintiff, explaining that “the State has always had a
compelling interest in promoting public safety. That interest is served by having the means to accurately and
swiftly determine identifies in given circumstances.”
Respond to the following prompts.
1) We discussed the refusal of Mrs. Sultaana Freeman, a devout Muslim, to remove the veil covering her face so that
she might be properly photographed for a driver’s license. Many Americans would believe that she should remove
her veil, allowing the interests of national security to prevail over her religious tradition. But would we feel the
same way if the petitioner were a Catholic nun whose religious order required her to wear a habit that partially
obscured her face?
2) Think about the Judge’s comment; even if we agree that a photograph establishes identity- itself a debatable
point- one might raise a question: why should the law say that the driver of a vehicle must provide a photo ID?
Isn’t a driver’s license a mere certification or permission to drive?
3) Judge Thorpe wrote the following as part of her explanation for her decision: “Although the Court acknowledges
that Plaintiff herself most likely poses no threat to national security, there likely are people who would willing to
use a ruling permitting the wearing of full-face cloaks in driver’s license photos by pretending to ascribe to
religious beliefs in order to carry out activities that would threaten lives.”
Is the Judge in effect saying that we should infringe on Sultanna Freeman’s religious beliefs because someone else
might do something wicked?
4) In England in 2006 a Muslim woman – a British citizen – was removed from her job as a schoolteacher because she
wore a veil. The stated reason was that the veil prevented her from effectively communicating with children. What
do you think of the view that a woman has a right to wear a veil, but when she enters the marketplace she may rightly
be denied certain jobs?