Here's some more information I found. In Veiled Threat (written last year), Jacob Sullum says that under the standard that the Supreme Court used up until 1990, Freeman would probably be able to get a non-photo driver's license under a religious exemption. However, in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the Supreme Court adopted a new standard which favored government interests over religious exercise to a much greater degree than before. Sullum feels that under the Smith standard, Freeman would be out of luck.
In blog entry on legal issues, I mentioned an Alabama case about people who believe that social security numbers are the "Mark of the Beast". This case is from 1998 and therefore the plaintiffs have to get around Smith. One of the ways that they do so is to allege that the plaintiffs' rights to free speech are also being limited. They say that in cases involving multiple Constitutional rights, the stricter standard against the government should be used.
The latest development in Freeman's case is that a judge allowed Freeman to proceed with her freedom of religion and due process claims but dismissed her privacy and free speech claims. The due process claim, as set out in her original filing, is that she was deprived of her driver's license without a hearing.
The rejection of the privacy and free speech claims may be fatal to Freeman's case, based on what I wrote above.
Incidentally, I also found a brief by the Maryland Attorney General (PDF) from 1994 in which the AG argued that Maryland citizens do not have a right to get non-photo driver's licenses under a religious exemption. The brief relies heavily on Smith but makes other arguments to distinguish the case from the 1985 case that I first mentioned.
The two other cases directly on point are Dennis v. Charnes, 646 F. Supp. 158 (D. Colo. 1986), and Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Pentecostal House of Prayer, Inc, 380 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 1978). Both cases found the right to a non-photo driver's license under religious exemption. However, both were before the Smith decision.
So the question is really open at this point. Jensen v. Quaring (the 1985 case) has not specifically been over-ruled but changes in the law (i.e., the Smith decision) mean that lower courts can and have argued that they are no longer bound by Jensen.
Right now, Freeman is just at the beginning of her journey through the court system. She is appealing the decision of the licensing department to a trial court in Florida, the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court in Orange County. I think that she will probably get a trial, because of her due process claim. She should not be stripped of her driver's license without due process of law and there was none. In her trial, she will argue that her license was wrongfully revoked in violation of her Constitutional right to free exercise of religion. The court may decide for her and order Florida to restore her driver's license, possibly in a non-photo form, or it may decide against her. Either way, there will probably be an appeal, assuming that Freeman really cares a lot about this.
Her current claim rests on her right to freedom of religion in the Florida state constitution, but she could if necessary allege that her rights under the federal constitution are also being violated. So this case could eventually go to the Supreme Court. However, it's a long, long way from that.
Although I think that Freeman's beliefs are wrong-headed, I think it's probably a good thing that she brought this lawsuit because it could help clarify what the law is.