CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION IV
Appellant objected to the requirement to have a
high-resolution facial photograph taken for renewal of her
Oklahoma drivers license; claiming the high-resolution
photograph, required by statute to be maintained by the
Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, violates her religious
beliefs, pursuant to the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act, 51
O.S.2011, §§ 251-258. The District Court of
Cleveland County granted summary judgment in favor of
Defendants/Appellees. The Court of Civil Appeals, Division
IV, reversed the district court, and we granted
Appellees' petition for certiorari.
OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION IS VACATED; JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED; REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
Doyle, Edmond, Oklahoma, for Appellant,
S. Mansinghani, Deputy Solicitor General, and Kevin L.
McClure, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Oklahoma
Attorney General, Litigation Section, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, for Appellees.
This Court granted certiorari in this case to consider
whether Appellant, Kaye Beach, sufficiently established that
her "religiously motivated practice has been
substantially burdened, " because she was required to
submit to a high-resolution facial photograph to renew her
drivers license, despite her belief that doing so violated
her religion. The Court of Civil Appeals held in her favor.
We reverse the Court of Civil Appeals and affirm the district
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Since 2001, the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety
(Department) has been required to maintain a system, for
limited use, for storing drivers license photographs
conforming with industry standards for interoperability.
Industry standards require a digital high-resolution facial
photograph (biometric photo) that is suitable for use with
facial recognition software. Department has also been
required since 2001, to implement a system to store digital
versions of fingerprints for limited usage. 
In September 2003, Department started using its current
system, collecting both fingerprints and biometric photos, to
issue and renew drivers licenses. The current system does not
allow Department to process an application for a drivers
license without a computerized digital facial image or
fingerprint. Department does not share any of the information
from fingerprints or photographs outside of the
statutorily-authorized purposes.  The only outside access
to the database is by the company who provides maintenance
support for the system, MorphoTrust USA,  and IT professionals
employed by the State of Oklahoma.
It is undisputed that Appellant has renewed her drivers
license at least two to three times under the new system.
Appellant states she was first aware of changes to the system
in 2004, when she was required to submit a fingerprint for a
renewal. Appellant first learned of the use of facial
recognition software with the biometric photo in 2007 or 2008
and first formed her belief that it was offensive to her
religiously "towards the end of 2009, 2010."
On March 8, 2011, Appellant attempted to apply to renew her
drivers license at Fuson Tag Agency in Norman, Oklahoma. The
tag agent informed Appellant that they were required by law
to take a biometric photo of her and Appellant could not
apply for or obtain a renewal without submitting to the
biometric photo and a fingerprint scan. Appellant requested
an accommodation based on her religious views and was denied.
On September 21, 2011, Appellant filed suit in Cleveland
County District Court seeking an accommodation for her
religious beliefs under the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act
(ORFA), 51 O.S.2011, §§ 251-258, and Article 2,
Section 30 of the Oklahoma Constitution.  On June 19, 2013,
Appellant filed a motion for partial summary judgment on her
ORFA claim. On April 1, 2014, Appellees filed a response to
Appellant's motion for partial summary judgment and a
counter-motion for summary judgment.
Appellant contends that her sincerely held religious beliefs
forbid her from participating in a global-numbering
identification system, using the number of man, and eternally
condemn her for participating in any such system.
Appellant believes that the biometric photo and fingerprint
that Department requires for renewal of a license is the
enrollment process for the identification system that is
forbidden in the Bible.  Appellant contends that
Department's system takes measurements off facial points,
from the biometric photo, to determine a number that is
specific to her,  for use with facial recognition
technology; Appellant believes the resulting number is the
"number of a man" referred to in
Revelation 13:16-18 thus Appellant objects to the
measurements of her body being used to identify her.
Appellant states that the government intends to use the
biometric photo to tie our bodies to our ability to buy and
sell in order to permit or deny access to goods, services,
places, and things needed to live everyday.
Appellant contends she is forbidden by her sincerely held
religious beliefs from allowing a biometric photo, compliant
with international standards for formatting, to be taken and
placed into a database even potentially accessible by
international entities or shared with other entities and
jurisdictions. Appellant states that the crux of the issue is
the global information sharing; noting that the industry
standards used by Department are compliant with international
standards and the database is maintained by a subsidiary of
an international company, on behalf of Department.
Appellant detailed the substantial burden on her religious
exercise by noting issues she has faced without having a
valid drivers license. Appellant has been ticketed for
driving without a license. Appellant is sometimes unable to
complete debit card transactions, has been unable to book a
hotel room, rent a private company's postal box, pick up
her own prescriptions, and a variety of other inconveniences
because of being unable to show a valid drivers license when
asked for identification. Finally, Appellant notes that she
is unlikely to find a job in the future due to requirements
on employers to verify identification.
On June 17, 2015, the district court denied Appellant's
motion for partial summary judgment and granted
Appellees' motion for summary judgment. On July 20, 2015,
Appellant appealed from summary judgment and the case was
assigned to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV.
On April 29, 2016, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed
summary judgment finding that Appellant had met her initial
burden and the burden was now on Appellees.  On May
19, 2016, Appellees petitioned for certiorari, asking this
Court to resolve what constitutes substantial burden
under ORFA.  This Court granted certiorari.
We review a summary judgment under a de novo
standard as it presents a question of law. Pickens v.
Tulsa Metro. Ministry, 1997 OK 152, ¶ 7, 951 P.2d
1079, 1082. Summary judgment shall be affirmed if there is no
dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 12 O.S.2011, §
2056 (C), Horton v. Hamilton, 2015 OK 6, ¶ 8,
345 P.3d 357, 360. The party moving for summary judgment must
propose undisputed material facts and demonstrate, with
reference to proper authority, why summary judgment should be
granted. Howell v. Texaco, 2004 OK 92, ¶ 15,
112 P.3d 1154. All inferences and conclusions drawn from the
evidentiary materials must be viewed in the light most
favorable to the party opposing the motion. Pickens,
1997 OK 152, ¶ 7, 951 P.2d at 1082.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT
In 2000, the Oklahoma Legislature enacted the Oklahoma
Religious Freedom Act (ORFA).  ORFA mandates that no
governmental entity shall substantially burden a person's
free exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a
rule of general applicability. 51 O.S.2011, § 253. ORFA
defines exercise of religion as "the exercise
of religion under Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution
of the State of Oklahoma, [  ORFA], and the First
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
 51 O.S.2011, § 252 (2).
This Court has not previously interpreted who bears the
burden of proof under ORFA  and ORFA itself is
silent as to the assignment of the burden of proof of the
party seeking relief under the Act. However, Title 51,
Section 252 provides guidance on the burden of proof by
defining demonstrate ...