BEACH v. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
2017 OK 40
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Since 2001 the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (DPS) has used an industry‑standard digital system that requires high‑resolution facial photographs (biometric photos) and fingerprint imaging for issuance/renewal of driver licenses. The system is interoperable and maintained with vendor support.
- Kaye Beach renewed licenses multiple times under the system but in 2011 refused to submit a biometric photo (and fingerprint) for renewal at a tag agency, requesting a religious accommodation. Her request was denied and she sued under the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act (ORFA) and the Oklahoma Constitution.
- Beach alleges her sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit participation in a "global‑numbering identification system" and that biometric enrollment equates to receiving the "number of a man" in Revelation, substantially burdening her religious exercise.
- DPS moved for summary judgment; the district court granted DPS summary judgment and denied Beach's partial summary judgment. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Supreme Court held Beach failed to carry the initial burden under ORFA to show a prima facie substantial burden, and the claim was also moot because Beach had already been enrolled in DPS’s biometric system. Judgment for DPS affirmed and Court of Civil Appeals opinion vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORFA requires DPS to accommodate Beach by exempting her from providing a biometric photo/fingerprint | Beach: biometric enrollment substantially burdens her sincere religious exercise (it is enrollment in a forbidden global identifier/"number of a man") | DPS: Beach must first show a prima facie substantial burden; DPS argues Beach did not meet that burden | Held: Plaintiff bears the initial burden to show a substantial burden; Beach failed to produce evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact that DPS substantially burdened her religious exercise. |
| Whether burden of proof shifts to the government under ORFA once plaintiff alleges burden | Beach: once burden asserted, government must justify | DPS: ORFA requires plaintiff to make a prima facie showing before government must demonstrate compelling interest/least restrictive means | Held: Court holds plaintiff must make initial prima facie showing of substantial burden before burden shifts to government. |
| Mootness—whether court can grant effective relief if plaintiff already submitted biometric data | Beach: seeks accommodation/remedy to avoid future enrollment and harms caused by lack of license | DPS: Beach already enrolled; court cannot provide effective relief | Held: Claim is moot because Beach already submitted biometric photo and fingerprints; no exception to mootness applies. |
| Whether DPS unlawfully shares biometric data internationally or otherwise in violation of ORFA | Beach: system interoperable and vendor affiliated with international company risks global sharing, violating beliefs | DPS: No evidence of international distribution; statutory limits on use and access | Held: No evidence provided that DPS distributed biometric data internationally; Beach’s speculative fears insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickens v. Tulsa Metro. Ministry, 951 P.2d 1079 (Okla. 1997) (de novo review standard for summary judgment).
- Horton v. Hamilton, 345 P.3d 357 (Okla. 2015) (summary judgment standard).
- Hough v. Leonard, 867 P.2d 438 (Okla. 1993) (issues not raised for appellate review are not proper basis for reversal).
- Chandler (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Tyree, 87 P.3d 598 (Okla. 2004) (mootness doctrine discussion).
- Howell v. Texaco, 112 P.3d 1154 (Okla. 2004) (movant’s burden in summary judgment).
- In the Matter of the Guardianship of Doornbos, 151 P.3d 126 (Okla. 2006) (mootness exceptions and final arbiter).
- Baby F. v. Okla. Cty. Dist. Court, 348 P.3d 1080 (Okla. 2015) (court will not decide moot or hypothetical issues).
- Steele v. Guilfoyle, 76 P.3d 99 (Okla. Civ. App. 2003) (holding under ORFA that plaintiff must make an initial prima facie showing of substantial burden).
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (U.S. 2015) (under similar RLUIPA framework, plaintiff bears initial burden to show government policy substantially burdens religious exercise).