What about feminism? Mexico declares the use of Islamic veils in official document photos legal

(ZENIT News / Mexico City, 12.12.2025).- A decision by Mexico’s Supreme Court this December quietly redrew the boundaries between state neutrality and religious freedom, setting a precedent that reaches far beyond the technicalities of passport photography. By approving the use of the Islamic hijab in passport photos—provided the face remains fully visible—the Court acknowledged a reality that Mexico’s legal framework has rarely been forced to confront: religious diversity is no longer abstract, even when it involves a community that represents a tiny fraction of the population.

The ruling emerged from a case that began not in the nation’s highest tribunal, but at a routine government office in the northern city of Chihuahua. There, officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs refused to process a passport application unless a Muslim woman removed her hijab for the official photograph. She declined, arguing that covering her head was not a personal preference but a religious obligation, and that being asked to remove it in public placed her in an untenable position.

After two failed attempts to complete the procedure in April 2022, the woman sought constitutional protection through an amparo lawsuit. Her claim forced the judiciary to weigh two principles that are often presented as complementary but can clash in practice: the state’s interest in uniform administrative rules and the individual’s right to religious expression.

In its December 11 session, the full bench of the Supreme Court opted for a narrow but consequential path. The justices did not strike down the Foreign Ministry’s general requirement that passport holders appear bareheaded. Instead, they carved out an exception for religious garments that do not obscure the face, effectively allowing items such as the hijab while preserving the state’s identification standards. The opinion, drafted by Justice Yasmín Esquivel Mossa, framed the issue as one of proportionality rather than ideological endorsement.

The decision immediately sparked debate, particularly given Mexico’s strong tradition of secularism and its self-image as a country largely shaped by Catholic culture. Critics questioned whether a progressive, left-leaning judiciary should accommodate a practice that, in other contexts—especially in parts of Europe—has been criticized as a symbol of female subordination. Supporters countered that the Court was not validating a social norm, but defending an individual’s freedom of conscience against bureaucratic rigidity.

What makes the ruling notable is not its immediate practical impact—Muslims account for roughly 0.01 percent of Mexico’s population—but its symbolic weight. In a nation where religious questions are usually framed within a Catholic or post-Catholic horizon, the Court was forced to articulate how constitutional protections apply to minority faiths that fall outside the country’s historical experience.

The justices’ approach reflects a cautious attempt to balance competing values. By insisting that the face remain uncovered, the Court reaffirmed the state’s interest in security and identification. By allowing religious headwear, it acknowledged that strict neutrality can, in practice, disadvantage certain believers if applied without flexibility.

The case also reveals a subtle shift in how religious freedom is understood in Mexico. Rather than treating faith as something that must be confined to the private sphere, the ruling accepts that religious identity can intersect with public administration without undermining the secular character of the state. This interpretation aligns Mexico more closely with international human rights standards, even as it diverges from more restrictive European models.

For the Catholic majority, the decision may seem distant or even irrelevant. Yet it raises questions that resonate across traditions: how far should the state go in accommodating religious practices, and at what point does accommodation become endorsement? As Mexico grows more religiously plural—through migration, conversion, and globalization—such questions are likely to surface with increasing frequency.

In the end, the hijab ruling is less about Islam than about the elasticity of secularism in a changing society. By choosing accommodation over prohibition, the Supreme Court signaled that neutrality does not require erasing visible difference. Instead, it may demand the more difficult task of governing a public space where difference is allowed to exist.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.