No Free Speech Right to Name Change
From In re Argue, decided June 2 by Minnesota District Court Judge Charles Webber:
Nautica Alaja Argue wants to change his name to Navier Argue, explaining that he wants his name “to accurately align with his gender identity as a transgender individual.” But Argue is a convicted felon {convicted [in 2022] of numerous aggravated robberies and other robberies … that involved more than a dozen separate victims} and therefore can change his name only as allowed by Minn. Stat. § 259.13.
That statute provides that when a prosecuting authority objects to a felon’s name-change application (as Ramsey County has done here), a court can grant the application only if the applicant either: (1) “proves by clear and convincing evidence that the request … will not compromise public safety” (among other things), or (2) establishes that failure to allow the name change “would infringe on a constitutional right of the [applicant].” … Argue has not carried his burden of proving by “clear and convincing evidence” that changing his name “will not compromise public safety,” and failure to grant his name-change request would not infringe on a recognized constitutional right.
The details related to the application of the statute are in the opinion (for more on Argue’s original crimes, see this newspaper article); but here’s the rejection of Argue’s constitutional claim:
Even if a person seeking a name change is not able to satisfy the requirements of § 259.13, subd. 3, a court must grant the request “if failure to allow it would infringe on a constitutional right of the person.” Argue maintains that denying his petition would infringe on two constitutional rights: his right to free speech and his right to privacy….
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has twice rejected [in nonbinding decisions] the argument that denial of a name-change request violates a person’s free-speech rights, noting both times that there is no authority supporting a free-speech right to change one’s name. Indeed, the court of appeals concluded that such a claim had “no merit.” Federal courts are in accord. See United States v. Diamond (E.D. Pa. 2022) (collecting cases)….
Argue acknowledges that the Supreme Court of Wisconsin recently held that a transgender person does not have a First Amendment right to a name change. Interest of C.G. (Wis. 2022). The court began by noting that “[f]ew courts have addressed this issue [and] [a]mong those that have, none have held that a prohibition on changing a person’s legal name, standing alone, implicates the right to free speech.” A concurring justice stated it even more bluntly, stating that the plaintiff there was asking the court to hold “for what would appear to be the first time in American history that a person’s legal name contains exp
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
