BEACH v. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
2017 OK 40
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Kaye Beach, who holds sincere religious objections to biometric identification, refused to submit to a high-resolution (biometric) facial photograph and fingerprint scan required to renew an Oklahoma driver’s license.
- Since 2001 Oklahoma law required the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to collect and store digital biometric photos and fingerprints consistent with industry standards; the DPS’s system will not process an application without these images.
- Beach sought a religious accommodation under the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act (ORFA) and Article II, § 30 of the Oklahoma Constitution after a tag agent denied her renewal without the biometric photo and fingerprint.
- The Cleveland County district court granted summary judgment for DPS; the Court of Civil Appeals reversed on the ORFA claim, prompting certiorari to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court held Beach failed to carry the initial prima facie burden under ORFA to show a substantial burden on her religious exercise and alternatively found the claim moot because Beach had already submitted biometric data to DPS and therefore could not obtain effective relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORFA plaintiff bears an initial burden to show a "substantial burden" on religious exercise | Beach: ORFA protects her from being required to enroll in biometric/global-numbering ID system; the photo/fingerprint are enrollment and substantially burden her religion | DPS: Plaintiff must first show a prima facie substantial burden; DPS also noted statutory limits on use and security measures | Held: Plaintiff bears the initial burden to make a prima facie showing of substantial burden; Beach did not meet it |
| Whether DPS substantially burdened Beach's religion by requiring biometric photo/fingerprint for license renewal | Beach: Requirement inhibits religiously motivated practice and risks international data sharing and future coupling to buy/sell systems | DPS: Collection is statutorily authorized, limited in use, and governed by confidentiality rules; no evidence of international sharing | Held: No evidence raised a genuine issue that DPS substantially burdened Beach’s religious exercise; summary judgment for DPS affirmed |
| Whether, if a substantial burden were shown, DPS could justify it under ORFA’s strict-scrutiny provision | Beach: Not addressed in detail on certiorari (burden never shifted) | DPS: Not reached because burden never shifted; argued statutory and security justifications in district court | Held: Court did not reach and resolve strict-scrutiny inquiry because plaintiff failed initial showing |
| Mootness — whether relief remains possible given Beach already submitted biometrics | Beach: Sought prospective accommodation for future renewals and ongoing harms from lacking valid license | DPS: Beach already submitted biometrics multiple times; system already contains her data so effective relief is unavailable | Held: Claim also moot because DPS already has Beach’s biometric data; no effective relief; exception to mootness not applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickens v. Tulsa Metro. Ministry, 951 P.2d 1079 (Okla. 1997) (standard of review for summary judgment; view facts in favor of nonmoving party)
- Steele v. Guilfoyle, 76 P.3d 99 (Okla. Civ. App. 2003) (held ORFA plaintiff must make initial prima facie showing of substantial burden)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (U.S. 2015) (recognizes petitioner’s initial burden to show government policy substantially burdens religious exercise under statutes similar to ORFA)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (U.S. 2014) (discusses burdens and protections for religious exercise under federal RFRA)
- Hough v. Leonard, 867 P.2d 438 (Okla. 1993) (procedural principle: issues not raised on certiorari are not grounds to reverse judgment)