Ramona Humpries is a German-born American citizen who has resided in the United States since she was five years old. In February 2024, Humpries was denied a non-driver identification card by the State of Alabama for failing to produce a suitable form of primary identification to prove her identity. Humpries, who uses a wheelchair and is unable to walk, alleges that she lost all of her primary documents when she moved to Alabama from Florida. Despite this, her application was still denied.
Humpries has been receiving Social Security benefits for over a decade. She also lived in Alabama from 2012 to 2015, during which time she held a valid Alabama driver’s license, demonstrating that the state had, at one point, accepted her primary documents. She retained her Social Security card and Medicare identification and also possessed a voter identification card that established her identity, yet she was still denied. Additionally, she submitted her German birth certificate in combination with these documents, but her application was again denied. Humpries filed a lawsuit in the Montgomery County Circuit Court to obtain her non-driver identification card ruled in her favor. However, the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, “ALEA” appealed to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, which would deny Ramona Humpries’ claim on April 25, 2025.
In this case, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held: “though we are not unsympathetic to Humphries's circumstances, her inability to produce the required documentation precludes any entitlement to a nondriver identification card under Alabama law.” Taylor v. Humphries, No. CL-2024-0791, 2025 WL 1198283, at *5 (Ala. Civ. App. Apr. 25, 2025). Alabama law requires that ALEA “make available to any resident of this state who does not hold a valid Alabama driver's license a nondriver identification card to be used for identification purposes only.” Taylor v. Humphries, WL 1198283, at *5 (quoting Ala. Code 1975, § 32-6-1(c)). However, Alabama law empowers ALEA to establish the necessary proof of identification for obtaining a driver’s license. Id.
Using this authority, ALEA has required that applicants for a nondriver identification card prove their citizenship using documents from a designated primary list. Id. That list includes: “U.S. Birth Certificate,” “U.S. Passport,” “Alabama Identification Card,” “Alabama Driver License,” “Certificate of Naturalization,” “Certificate of Citizenship,” “U.S. Certificate of Birth Abroad,” “Resident Alien Card,” or a “Valid Foreign Passport with valid United States immigration document.” Id. Humphries was not in possession of any of these documents, and therefore ALEA denied her application. Id. The Court concluded: “[t]here can be no doubt that [Humphries] is authorized under federal law to be in the United States.” Id. However, the court affirmed ALEA’s authority to deny her application for failing to present a qualifying document, emphasizing that it is not within the court’s power to amend the list of acceptable documents even if Humphries could otherwise prove her citizenship. Id.
Humphries challenged this conclusion, arguing: “They are duty-bound to pursue justice. The back of the Supreme Court building is inscribed with the precept, ‘Justice, the Guardian of Liberty.’ The question this Court should be asking is what is just in these circumstances.” Id. She attempted to invoke the court’s equitable powers to achieve a just outcome, arguing that ALEA’s refusal was unreasonable because she could clearly prove her citizenship, and despite three years of effort, was unable to obtain any of the primary documents. Id. In response, the Court held: “Humphries has provided no authority indicating that principles of equity support a judgment requiring ALEA to issue a nondriver identification card to her despite her inability to provide the necessary documentation.” Id. The Court further emphasized “that a harsh result under a statute does not serve as a basis for judicial correction or amendment of the language of a statute.” Id. Ultimately, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals denied Humphries’s claim and upheld ALEA’s decision to deny her a nondriver identification card. Id at 5.
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals made the wrong decision in this case. The Court hid behind a legal guise, claiming it lacked the power to grant the relief requested because doing so would alter the statute. However, the Court had the authority to apply equitable principles to achieve a just outcome. While the Court framed itself as a blind arbiter of justice merely interpreting the statute, in doing so, it turned a blind eye to actual justice. Humphries clearly proved she was a United States citizen, the very purpose of the primary list of documentation. The Court even acknowledged that she is a citizen, yet it failed to make a common-sense and equitable decision.
The statute requires applicants to prove citizenship using one of nine listed documents. Humphries met that requirement through other reliable documentation not on the list. Despite that, she was denied by ALEA, and the Court affirmed this denial. When the law is applied in a way that defies both justice and common sense, it undermines public trust in the government and in the legal system. A functional government depends on faith in its institutions, and when trust erodes, institutions begin to break down. This erosion of trust is visible in numerous Eastern European and Latin American countries, where overly bureaucratic and arbitrary legal systems have weakened the rule of law and contributed to broader societal dysfunction. Although this decision by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals may seem minor in isolation, it represents a larger problem: decisions that ignore fairness and reasonableness damage the legitimacy of the courts, especially at a time when public confidence in the legal system is already at historic lows. The erosion of public trust in institutions, can lead to societal disfunction in the United States. It can happen here too.
If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Joe Ingram Law, LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief * Get Results.