Are there exemptions for religious or disability reasons to avoid digital ID?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Exemptions to avoid digital ID vary widely by country and by the specific ID scheme: U.S. federal REAL ID rules generally require a photo and do not broadly permit religious opt-outs for passports, though some state or agency processes offer narrow religious or indigence exemptions for specific photo-ID uses [1] [2] [3]. Several national digital‑ID proposals — notably the UK’s 2025 plan — are prompting debates about voluntariness, inclusion and tailored accommodations for people with disabilities; some jurisdictions build explicit exemptions and accessibility rules into their regimes while others emphasize uniform standards that limit religious exemptions [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. Religious-photo exemptions: narrow and context-specific
Federal U.S. practice shows limited tolerance for refusing photos on religious grounds: the Department of State requires a passport photo and “does not permit exemption from this requirement based on religious objections,” and the REAL ID statute imposes a photo requirement on state IDs [1] [2]. At the state level, some voting or state‑issued ID rules provide narrow paths: Indiana’s voter‑ID rules list a religious objection to being photographed as an exemption in certain voting contexts, and some motor‑vehicle bureaus allow “photo‑exempt” procedures tied to specific documentation such as IRS Form 4029 in religious‑exemption cases [3] [8]. DHS guidance notes it will accommodate head coverings where facial features remain visible, but that accommodation is not the same as permitting no photo at all [9].
2. Disability accommodations are treated as accessibility, not blanket opt‑outs
Governments and disability advocates frame exemptions for disabled people largely as accessibility measures rather than wholesale exemptions from identity requirements. Several U.S. states issue specific “Person with a Disability” IDs, disability identifiers on driver’s licenses, or free disability ID cards to help access services; these are voluntary markers and do not generally remove the need for an official photo ID when a scheme requires one [10] [11] [12]. National schemes or legislation (for example Australia’s Digital ID Act) often require consultation with organisations representing people who face barriers, and they introduce exemptions, conditions or rule‑making powers intended to tailor implementation — not to eliminate identity verification altogether [13].
3. New digital‑ID programs raise inclusion promises and resistance
The UK government’s 2025 digital‑ID plans prompted both official promises of inclusion programmes to help the digitally excluded and a broad civil‑society backlash arguing mandatory systems would exclude or coerce people who cannot or will not use them; NGO briefings and petitions press the government to consider protected characteristics and access issues [14] [15]. Parliamentary and policy briefings show the scheme will link to GOV.UK OneLogin and UK Wallet and sit alongside statutory trust frameworks intended to set privacy and inclusivity standards — though critics say statutory standards may still fail to protect those with religious objections or severe digital exclusion [6] [15].
4. Legal precedent: free‑exercise claims often lose where government shows compelling interests
Historical legal analyses find courts balance religious exercise against uniform ID requirements; in some contexts courts have forced accommodations but in others upheld uniform rules where the government demonstrates a compelling interest (cited Supreme Court cases summarized in CRS and REAL ID analyses). REAL ID’s photo rule has been identified as especially rigid in statute and regulation, making successful judicial exemptions for religious beliefs unlikely at the federal level [2] [1].
5. Practical pathways for claimants: state routes, accommodations and advocacy
If someone seeks to avoid a particular digital or photo ID for religious or disability reasons, available sources suggest practical steps differ by jurisdiction: pursue state‑level options (photo‑exempt ID programs, disability ID markers, provisional ballots with post‑vote affirmation) or seek administrative accommodations (e.g., head‑covering allowances in photos, inclusion programmes) while engaging advocacy groups and rule‑making consultations that many governments now require [8] [3] [13] [12]. Sources do not provide a universal global exemption; the options depend on the specific law or program (not found in current reporting).
6. Competing frames: security, inclusion and civil‑liberties politics
Proponents emphasize fraud prevention, streamlined services and inclusion of the digitally excluded; critics warn of coercion, surveillance and exclusion — a debate evident in UK parliamentary petitions and NGO briefings and echoed in civil‑liberties analyses [14] [15] [5]. Industry groups also caution against sweeping exemptions that might weaken trust frameworks or distort markets [16]. These competing priorities shape whether and how exemptions or accommodations are written into law or implementation rules.
Limitations and next steps: available sources cover U.S. federal and state practice, the UK policy debate and some other national acts (Australia) but do not catalogue every country’s rules or provide step‑by‑step administrative forms for every jurisdiction; consult the issuing agency in your state or country for the exact exemptions, and use advocacy groups cited above for tailored legal help [4] [13] [3] [12].