Read this recently and thought it would be most appropriate here for those in OK who are now recipients of marked DLs/IDs and want to fight them:
“Recent SCOTUS Opinion in NIFLA v. Becerra (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf) is chock full of good material to use against marked DLs and IDs. It relies a good deal on Riley v. Nat’l Fed. of the Blind (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/781/case.html), which isn’t surprising given that case’s holding that even factual speech is subject to compelled-speech analysis. It’s possible anyone in a marked-DL/ID state could easily win a case using this case and its citations, especially if some Wooley v. Maynard (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/430/705/case.html) is tossed in for good measure. Marked DLs/IDs are easily intermediate scrutiny material (speaker-based speech), but probably strict scrutiny material (content-based speech).”
“There are so many gems in this case, but one from Kennedy in his Concurrence (joined by Roberts, Alito, and Gorsuch) stands out: “Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions.”” Well, that is a swing against those states with marked-DLs/IDs, e.g. AL, FL, MS, & OK.