In the case of Freeman v. State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Judge Janet C. Thorpe ruled in favor of the Department of Motor Vehicles. Her explanations concluded that although the plaintiff may not pose a threat to national security, there is a possibility that there are people who may use the ruling of permitting face cloths as a way to threaten lives. In the events of September 11, 2001, national security has risen to an all time high in order to protect the United States and its citizens. Therefore, identification is a vital step in securing the nation against those who may possibly pose a threat. The first amendment of the United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” However, it also states that Congress has the power, “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.” This area of the constitution may be infringement on one’s belief. Nevertheless, the government sometimes prohibits beliefs it considers harmful to society. Consequently, the ruling against Plaintiff Sultaana Freeman was necessary in such times of needed security. Before, the terrorists’ attacks of September 11, 2001, Sultaana Freeman was granted a Florida driver’s license. However, in 2002, she was informed that her license would be revoked if she refused to allow the Department of Motor Vehicles to
photograph her face. She then sued the state of Florida, proclaiming, unveiling would violate her Islamic beliefs (Current Issues, p.4). She proclaimed, “I’m fighting for the principle and the religious freedom of all people in the country.” Nevertheless, her religious freedom was never violated; she still has the right to express and exercise the right to freedom of religion,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document