Wearing a colander in your driver’s license photo as a Pastafarian is legally possible in a few states but far from guaranteed, and a Pastafarian colander license photo that gets approved at the counter can still be revoked later. A federal court has ruled that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is parody rather than religion, several states have pulled licenses after facial-recognition flags, and even the states that allow religious headwear generally reserve that accommodation for faiths they consider genuine. Your odds depend on your state, the clerk you encounter, and whether you can clear a sincerity standard that courts have applied skeptically to Pastafarian claims.
Why Most Requests Get Denied
The decisive legal ruling came in 2016. In Cavanaugh v. Bartelt, a federal district court in Nebraska held that “FSMism is not a ‘religion’ within the meaning of the relevant federal statutes and constitutional jurisprudence. It is, rather, a parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education.” The court found the FSM Gospel is “plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement.”
That ruling isn’t binding on every state, but it gives DMV agencies and state courts a ready framework for rejecting Pastafarian accommodation requests. No U.S. court has ruled the opposite way.
The second obstacle is sincerity. Courts generally refuse to judge whether a religious belief is true or logical, and instead ask whether the person sincerely holds it.1U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Section 12: Religious Discrimination Uncommon beliefs, new religions, and beliefs no formal church endorses can all qualify.2eCFR. 29 CFR 1605.1 – Religious Nature of a Practice or Belief But because the movement openly describes itself as satirical and its founding text is acknowledged as comedic, agencies have a strong basis for treating the colander as a political statement rather than a sincere practice. Someone who genuinely treats Pastafarianism as a worldview might still clear the bar; the movement’s own literature just makes that case harder to win than any other religious headwear request.
What DMV Photo Rules Actually Require
State DMVs follow standardized photo requirements built around facial recognition and law enforcement identification. The typical rules require your full face visible from chin to forehead, with both edges of the face unobstructed. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, whose model standards most states adopt, permits headgear only for cardholders whose religion requires it.
Even where religious headwear is allowed, the accommodation comes with conditions:
- Full face visibility from chin to forehead, with no part of the face covered.
- No shadows across the face that would interfere with identification.
- Compliance with federal REAL ID photo standards.
A colander worn on top of the head usually meets these technical rules, because it doesn’t cover the face. When the request is rejected, the reason is almost always whether Pastafarianism counts as a religion, not whether the colander blocks your features.
Whether the Law Is on Your Side
The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, and that protection extends to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.3Constitution Annotated. Overview of Free Exercise Clause Courts protect religious practices “so long as the practice does not run afoul of public morals or a compelling governmental interest.”4Cornell Law Institute. Free Exercise Clause That sounds like a strong shield, but you only reach it after clearing the sincerity threshold described above.
The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993, originally required the government to show a compelling interest before substantially burdening religious exercise and to use the least restrictive means available.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC Chapter 21B – Religious Freedom Restoration In 1997, the Supreme Court struck down the portions of RFRA that applied to state and local laws in City of Boerne v. Flores, and the statute was later amended to remove “and State” from its applicability provision.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 2000bb-3 – Applicability Because driver’s licenses are issued by state agencies, federal RFRA does not govern your DMV visit.
Roughly 28 states have passed their own RFRAs, including Texas, Florida, Indiana, Arizona, Illinois, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. If you live in one of those states, the state RFRA is what actually matters. In states without one, the controlling rule comes from Employment Division v. Smith: neutral, generally applicable laws don’t violate the Free Exercise Clause even if they incidentally burden religious practice. A DMV photo policy that applies equally to everyone is constitutional on its face under that standard, no matter how it affects your colander. A policy that specifically singled out colanders while allowing other headwear would be different and would trigger strict scrutiny.7Legal Information Institute. Laws that Discriminate Against Religious Practice
How to Request the Accommodation
Check your state DMV’s website first for any published policy on religious headwear and any formal accommodation request form. Some states handle this in writing; others handle it informally at the counter.
Bring a written statement explaining what the colander means to you. Focus on sincerity rather than theology. Agencies care less about doctrinal coherence than about whether you genuinely hold the belief in daily life, so documentation of consistent practice helps: wearing the colander in other contexts, participating in Pastafarian community events, a history of identifying with the movement. Scripture quotes carry less weight than a track record.
At the DMV, raise the accommodation request at check-in or the service window. Expect the clerk to escalate to a supervisor or regional manager. Non-traditional headwear almost always triggers higher-level review, so a wait is normal. If approved, your photo will be taken under the same visibility standards as any other license photo.
If You’re Denied
Denial is the more likely outcome. Ask for it in writing, and ask the agency to cite the specific regulation or policy it relied on. Without that written record, an appeal becomes much harder.
Most states offer an administrative appeal for licensing decisions. Filing deadlines typically range from 10 to 60 days after the denial. Check your state’s motor vehicle code or the denial letter itself for the exact window and the office that handles appeals. Missing the deadline generally forfeits your right to challenge the decision administratively.
Beyond administrative appeal, you could sue under your state’s RFRA (if one exists) or under the Free Exercise Clause. Realistically, Cavanaugh gives courts a clear roadmap for ruling against Pastafarian claims, so litigation is unlikely to succeed unless you can meaningfully distinguish your situation. Replacement or update fees for a new license photo generally run between $11 and $37, so if you need a license without further delay, taking a standard photo now and pursuing the legal question separately is often the more practical choice.
What Has Happened to Others Who Tried
A few publicized cases show the pattern. In Massachusetts in 2015, Lindsay Miller was initially denied by the RMV, got legal help, and eventually received a license with the colander. In Texas, Eddie Castillo won approval after more than a month of back-and-forth with the Department of Public Safety, which then said its legal department would review the case to “rectify the situation.” In Arizona, Sean Corbett tried multiple MVD locations before one allowed the photo; the state later announced its facial recognition software should have flagged the image and that it would pull the license.
The pattern is consistent across these cases: initial approval at the counter followed by institutional pushback once supervisors or legal teams review the decision. A colander photo that slips through isn’t the same as one that’s been formally approved through an accommodation process, and agencies have shown they will revoke licenses issued in error.