SHOULD ESTABLISHED LEGAL PRECEDENTS BE IGNORED BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS NATIONAL SECURITY?
Equally disturbing about the trial court’s decision in this case is the willingness to simply set aside established legal precedents in order to respond to a perceived future threat to security. The court, while acknowledging that Mrs. Freeman “herself most likely poses no threat to national security, there likely are people who would be willing to use a ruling permitting the wearing of full face cloaks in driver’s license photos by pretending to ascribe to religious beliefs in order to carry out activities that would threaten lives.” Thus, because some future person could try to obtain a license without a photograph for fraudulent reasons, it becomes necessary today to override sincerely held religious beliefs. To the extent we allow the terrorist attacks of 9-11 to override well established legal principles, and to do so in a way which does not make us safer, we will have allowed terrorism to inflict further irreparable harm. A reasoned analysis of the facts and the law greatly erode
