BEACH v. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
2017 OK 40
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Kaye Beach refused to submit a high-resolution biometric facial photograph and fingerprint when renewing her Oklahoma driver’s license, claiming it violated her religious beliefs under the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act (ORFA).
- DPS had collected and stored biometric photos and fingerprints since 2003 in a system conforming to industry (and international) standards; the system cannot process renewals without a digital facial image and fingerprint.
- Beach alleges her religion forbids participation in a global identification/"number of the beast" system and that enrollment in DPS’s biometric database substantially burdens her religious exercise.
- Beach sued DPS in Cleveland County District Court seeking a religious accommodation; the district court granted summary judgment for DPS; the Court of Civil Appeals reversed; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Supreme Court held Beach failed to make a prima facie showing that DPS substantially burdened her religious exercise and also found the claim moot because Beach had previously submitted her biometrics and was already enrolled in the system.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears initial burden under ORFA to show a "substantial burden" | Beach: DPS’s biometric requirement substantially burdens her religious exercise; burden should shift to DPS once asserted | DPS: Plaintiff must first make a prima facie evidentiary showing of substantial burden before burden shifts to government | Court: Plaintiff bears initial burden to demonstrate substantial burden before burden shifts to government under ORFA |
| Whether biometric photo requirement substantially burdens Beach's religious exercise | Beach: Biometric enrollment equals participation in forbidden global-numbering system and will prevent buying/selling; practical harms from lack of license show substantial burden | DPS: No evidence its practices inhibit or curtail Beach’s religious practice; biometric use restricted by statute and not shared internationally | Court: Beach failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue that DPS substantially burdened her religious exercise |
| Mootness of requested relief | Beach: Continued practical harms from lacking valid license; requests accommodation moving forward | DPS: Beach already submitted biometrics and is enrolled; court cannot grant effective relief | Court: Claim is moot because Beach already enrolled in DPS database; no applicable exception to mootness shown |
| Whether ORFA requires strict scrutiny and how applied | Beach: ORFA requires government to justify burden under compelling interest/least restrictive means once burden shown | DPS: Agrees standard applies but notes burden never shifted because Beach did not meet initial showing | Court: ORFA incorporates strict scrutiny, but DPS need not justify because plaintiff failed to make prima facie showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickens v. Tulsa Metro. Ministry, 951 P.2d 1079 (Okla. 1997) (summary judgment de novo standard)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (U.S. 2015) (plaintiff bears initial burden to show government policy substantially burdens religious exercise)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (U.S. 2014) (framework for assessing religious exercise burdens)
- Steele v. Guilfoyle, 76 P.3d 99 (Okla. Ct. App. 2003) (ORFA burden discussion applying RLUIPA approach)
- Chandler (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Tyree, 87 P.3d 598 (Okla. 2004) (mootness/advisory opinion principles)
- In the Matter of the Guardianship of Doornbos, 151 P.3d 126 (Okla. 2006) (exceptions to mootness doctrine)