The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles issued [Sultaana] Freeman, 38, a license in 2001 showing her veiled with only her eyes visible, but later suspended it.That's a rather strange way to word the problem. Her religion doesn't require her to have a driver's license, I assume. So even if her religion did forbid all photographs, the law wouldn't require her to engage in conduct that her religion forbids. But perhaps her religion requires her to veil most of her face? Then the law compels her to do something against her religion to the same extent that it would if her religion had forbidden all photographs. I don't think the ultimate answer should depend entirely on whether the law forbids what the religion requires, but it would be nice if the court could at least get it straight whether that is what is happening.
Freeman sued, claiming the suspension infringed upon her First Amendment rights.
In 2003, Circuit Judge Janet C. Thorpe agreed with authorities that letting people show only their eyes would undermine efforts to stop terrorists. That same year, Gov. Jeb Bush signed legislation requiring a picture of a driver's full face on a license.
The appeals court found enforcement of the law "did not compel Freeman to engage in conduct that her religion forbids -- her religion does not forbid all photographs."
I haven't read the case, only the news report. Maybe I'm being unfair to the judge.