- First, an array of courts decided against those with positions similar to his. These concluded in the 9th US Circuit, and in the US Supreme Court, cited below.
- Second, his position simply makes no sense. An ordered society enjoying ordered liberty has to have common rules relating to identifying its citizens positively and uniformly. The SSN serves that purpose when coupled with data on the driver license.
- Third, People must prove driving competence and knowledge of traffic laws prior to operating dangerous vehicles. Each state has the obligation properly to qualify its driving citizens so people will feel confident of their safety in the presence of out-of-state drivers. That principle remains true for international drivers. By driver, I mean anybody operating a potentially dangerous transport vehicle of any kind, irrespective of whether in or not in commerce. No exceptions can exist for religious beliefs or practices.
I might suggest that Ron Branson move from California to Florida because Florida has religious right protection specified in Statute Chapter 761 (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1998). California doesn't. However, I think he'd lose his battle in Florida too, for the above reasons.
Use of Peyote caused loss of job. Scalia said nobody has right just to invent a religious practice as justification for violating law. Law neutral to religion still valid even though it addresses a practice used in some religions. Decision in hybrid rights 21 years ago. No single decision shows hybrid rights were established and got around Smith.