Which U.S. states have passed laws protecting residents who refuse Real ID and what protections do they provide?
Executive summary
A number of states formally resisted REAL ID in the past: reporting and advocacy organizations say about 25 states either passed statutes or resolutions rejecting REAL ID, and at least 15 states enacted laws that prohibited state compliance at one point [1]. Current federal and state materials show that by the 2025 enforcement deadline states are issuing REAL ID-compliant cards and that noncompliant state-standard licenses are no longer accepted for boarding or federal access as of May 7, 2025 [2] [3] [4].
1. What “rejection” meant in practice: legislative resolutions vs. prohibitory laws
Early state actions varied. Some states passed symbolic resolutions urging Congress to repeal REAL ID; others enacted binding statutes that forbade state agencies from implementing REAL ID’s requirements without additional legal protections or funding. The ACLU summarizes this split: 25 states either through statute or resolution rejected the Act, and 15 states passed laws expressly prohibiting compliance [1]. That distinction matters because a resolution signals political opposition while a statute can direct a DMV’s hands-on operations [1].
2. Which states are repeatedly named as objectors
Contemporary reporting and advocacy sites repeatedly cite the same group of objecting states historically—Maine and Montana are among the examples singled out in coverage and commentary as having refused or legislatively opposed compliance in earlier years [5] [1]. Coverage from civil liberties organizations and interest groups lists broad opposition across roughly half the nation in the program’s early years [1] [6]. Available sources do not provide a single, current list of which exact states still retain prohibitory statutes today; they report numbers and examples rather than an updated state-by-state table [1] [5].
3. What protections these state laws aimed to provide
Where statutes existed, they tended to do three things: prohibit state agencies from sharing certain data or from implementing DHS technical standards without legislative approval; require that state-issued IDs not be converted into a national ID; and demand stronger privacy, funding, or procedural safeguards before full compliance. Civil liberties reporting frames these statutes as attempts to protect privacy and states’ rights [1] [6]. Specific statutory language and the precise protections vary by state; the ACLU and advocacy sites describe the goals in aggregate but not uniform statutory text [1] [6].
4. How federal action changed the practical effect of state resistance
Federal authorities repeatedly postponed strict enforcement. DHS and TSA extended and then phased in enforcement dates multiple times; final federal rulemaking in 2025 allowed phased, card-based enforcement beginning May 7, 2025, and gave federal agencies up to two years to implement strict card-only checks, to avoid overwhelming states with late demand [7] [3]. TSA and DHS messaging after that point emphasized that states were issuing compliant cards and urged residents to obtain them [2] [4]. Those federal shifts reduced the immediate leverage states had to block federal acceptance of their licenses [3].
5. Practical protections for residents who refuse REAL ID after 2025
State DMV pages and reporting show that many jurisdictions continue to issue a “standard” license separate from a REAL ID card for driving and everyday ID purposes; those standard licenses remain valid for driving but are not accepted for federal purposes such as boarding domestic flights or entering certain federal facilities as of May 7, 2025 [8] [9]. Thus the principal practical protection for a resident refusing REAL ID is the continued ability to hold a noncompliant state license for state-level uses; federal access using that card is no longer guaranteed [8] [9].
6. Competing perspectives and the agendas behind them
Civil liberties groups framed state statutes as necessary bulwarks for privacy and states’ rights [1]. Advocacy organizations that oppose REAL ID cast federal rules as coercive and risky for civil liberties [6]. Federal agencies framed REAL ID as a national-security and anti-fraud measure, arguing uniform standards improve identification reliability and public safety [4] [2]. Each side has an implicit agenda: privacy advocates prioritize limiting federal data flows and mandatory standards; federal agencies prioritize interoperable security standards and accepting a uniform credential at federal checkpoints [1] [2].
7. Limits of current reporting and what’s not found
Available sources document numbers of rejecting states and examples, federal enforcement dates, and that noncompliant standard licenses continue for state purposes; they do not provide a definitive, up-to-date list in these materials naming every state that still retains an anti‑REAL ID statute as of late 2025 [1] [2]. For a state-by-state legal inventory and the exact statutory language, consult each state’s legislature or DMV website—current reporting here stops short of a full legal audit [1] [8].
Bottom line: historical resistance was widespread (about 25 states in total took some formal action) and some states enacted prohibitory statutes to protect privacy and limit data-sharing [1]. But federal rulemaking and phased enforcement in 2025 narrowed the practical protections: residents can still hold non‑REAL ID state licenses for driving, but those cards are not accepted for federal purposes like boarding flights as of May 7, 2025 [2] [8] [9].