There is no ruling. The article spells it out as a "settlement subject to being approved by the judge in that case". Generally, that means this is the police de

There is no ruling. The article spells it out as a "settlement subject to being approved by the judge in that case". Generally, that means this is the police dept (and city that funds it) giving up and paying some money now to avoid a potentially much higher penalty if they let the case go to verdict. Occasionally this could reflect that the police dept - and city - truly recognize they were wrong, truly have changed policy and practices, and want to put the issue behind them. That is, in that case, there is no more need for a trial. Either way the judge approval is, nominally, a safeguard against settlements that are too unjust or against public policy. The judge can reject the settlement even if both parties to the lawsuit truly want that outcome. I agree that booking photos with the head nearly completely covered - all the way to completely covered - makes them useless. What I wonder is what is the workaround used by the police for people who invoke hijab.