to choose one's name is intimately related to the core values the st amendment protects expression suk determination and personal autonomy wisconsin has adopted a law that makes it a felony offense for an conviction that is nearly thirty years all she's permanently prohibited from obtaining government recognition for her chosen me mr necker lester give me this is judge grosvenor but i'd like to start you off in this way your court based its decision or on the family here to provide legal support for the argument that the  implicated in speech and expression under the st amendment i want to appeal it seems to me that the only issue not point to anything so we have i think a bit of a pro why why shouldn't we occur the court given that you have not addressed the basis for the courts to if you should unless i had really missed something i could not disagree more strongly with the district court's conclusion that the  expressive implications of her inability to change her name and the ways in which that ability hinders her expression and her ability to identify by name that she considers essential self expression and her identity and quite honestly in the briefing below neither party gave significant attention to that threshold issue of whether there was a  st amendment right to control one's own name because it frankly seemed uncontroversial courts routinely apply the st amendment to denials of name change petitions these cases often make the new list for example if someone wants to a doctor name that uses special characters or unusual spellings or implies nobility the st amendment is routinely applied to those decisions to do now name change a lawyer journal article as support for the argument that regulating a person's name implicates the st amendment license is something that a person is compelled to communicate and can bet on and that was something that was given a lot of attention in the briefing to law application of the supreme court's including wally vs maynard two the circumstances in this case and so i think the district court's decision is old wrong and and i think that the confusion arose from what i've only been able to interpret as a very cramped of the year all of this hard distinction between what you call yourself and whether you right and so i think that the district court took this if you know that there needed to be some defrayed or separate authority to prove that there is a st amendment interest involved at all in the right to team government recognition for a person's identify and that is as the middle district of alabama and the recent louisiana supreme court decision and held they believe that what appears on a driver's license is something that a person doesn't really have a choice but to communicate to others with whom they interact in the world and as a result of the legal profession on ms craps being able to change their name formally she is functionally obligated to disclose and respond to the name cat and she cannot go about which of fulfilling her duties like pay her taxes exercising her rights like voting or evasion of tasks of daily life like going to the doctor paying for bell's applying for a job with no one miss nicholas i would be wrong that the law implicated speech of truth and is analogous to other compelled speech cases i would be wrong if i thought that that's no longer the relevant issue but that rather the issue before us is whether the court heard in determining the chief fail to develop that argument in the court  and so the court below could not consider i would be wrong and not sure i quite understand the question but if i understand you correctly i would agree with you that it just for court was wrong to conclude that the arguments concerning the st amendment implications of one's ability or inability to legally change their name were not what we've done here is really to point out that i think there is a false distinction being drawn between the ability to identify by name and the ability to obtain legal recognition for that's the only thing i can conclude from the district court's decision is that the district court saw it there being a great difference between the chair and perhaps recognizing that informally identifying by karen is not and that's all that's protected by the st amendment where is the ability to legally change one's name on perhaps all that sad that up the protection of the st amendment and for all the reasons set forth in our  that just simply isn't true that ms krebs ability to identify back is grossly inhibited by her inability to obtain government recognition for a bad name there are so many circumstances under which using a government issued id is not a choice displaying that id is a essential function of life that people must engage and so if the government controls what appears on that id in this era only controls parents teach on it how she can identify herself i see i'm a little on times i'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for her that quite simply prohibits convicted sex offenders from changing their name but she failed to show in the district court briefing that that prohibition  implicates any speech right whatsoever the court did not get into what level of scrutiny to apply under the st amendment it didn't address this crevasses novel limited public forum argument it just simply said under this court's precedent and under the supreme court precedent clark that every plaintiff under one thousand nine hundred and three as a threshold burden has to show that there is some constitutional right at issue so this court the not go any further than that whatsoever so not only did she not support her claim with with case law but the non binding well review article actually help to the contrary so the district court was correct in its in its conclusion that it was under no obligation to analyze ms krebs claims on board from any legal footing whatsoever much less a solid one  to entering federal buildings i mean it was so why is it a stretch to hold that the refusal to allow a name change impacts a person's right of expression especially where is here the license reveals personal information of the crips it she would choose to keep private well judge wrote her i would make a couple of points in response to that number one the law that is being challenged here is not of an identification law when a driver's license law it's a law that merely prohibits one action changing one's name describes  has a driver's license so at i think you're correct to point out that we need a driver's license and wife and we use it various contexts and describes this law in no way prohibits ms krebs from voting or from any taxes or well judge roden or to that i would say number one this court is held in the middle lock a case that the legal name is not forced on anyone by the state if it's a name that's given to you by your parents so to the extent legally to care and then she should have done so in that case with a luckless you know of that is to milwaukee who objected to that to his legal name because it sounded like a white man's name the court responded by saying you should have changed your name before you committed three and she did not do so and then the other point i would make is the central theme running through all of the compelled speech cases barnette of willie reilly janice that the central theme is  silent she doesn't have to say anything by virtue of this law this law merely says that convicted sex offenders are prohibited from changing their names now  get it to the extent that the court wants to consider the the merits this law is content neutral and what it does is that prohibits conduct not speech so to the extent that there is any  reasons number one only inherently expressive activity is inherently an expressive concept is subject to any st amendment protection at all and i would argue that changing one's name in and of itself is not inherently expressive as as the supreme court explained in the rumsfeld case which involved a group of law schools protesting the militar s treatment of people who identified as openly gay in the military they excluded military recruiters on that basis and in protest of that policy and so congress passed the solomon amendment that said if you do that you're going to lose your federal funding and so the law schools argued that that's impinge upon their st amendment rights protest and what the supreme court said was that this law regulates conduct doesn't require the law schools to say anything and there's nothing inherently expressive about your conduct it's it's only when you explain why the military recruiters are not on campus that we understand that you are exercising your right to protest the military's policy and homosexuals in the military and so it when a pond up has to be explained by or there's not inherently expressing the morris isn't there a possibility though that a name change could be expressive i'm thinking of sports stars run our tasks changes his name to metta world peace lloyd free changes his name to world be free name correct yes i would concede that that's true in fact your honor i was thinking about this when it was preparing for this argument and i would i would concede as i think the supreme court cases  the demonstration so i think to answer your point directly i think that a name change could certainly be more expressive and perhaps get into this or in the territory depending on the name change n which is a far cry from those examples you cited there are the example that i  e the next point i would make under a bronze even if you were to assume for purposes of this argument that a name change to karen is inherently expressive the law still satisfies the ultimate test under o'brian which block is the government trying to further important purpose and here it's not disputed that the government is in passing the name change prohibition what it's doing is it is trying to protect the community and protect our children from those sex offenders who would try to change their name to disappear into our society and in fact we know that because it in the cited materials there's evidence in the form of testimony from senator darling proposed who testified in support of the law and what she said in her testimony was at that time in two thousand and three the department corrections was currently uncertain of the whereabouts of about two thousand nine hundred sex offenders who were on the registry which is about one rd of all sex offenders and sons and and at the waca shop these department has actually encountered a sex offender who had changed his name to avoid the registration requirements and what senator darling said was this law is designed to close that loophole and to make our communities safer and so there's an important governmental interest here and then the only remaining question under o'brien to satisfy her media scrutiny is does this law further that and and the answer is yes it does because without this law there is absolutely nothing that prohibits the conduct such as changing one's name to avoid the registration requirement there is nothing to to stop this i ndividual who is apprehended in waukesha from disappearing into society and that's enough to satisfy intermediate scrutiny under o'brien and finally discuss that case she would she merely cleans to one statement in the court's opinion that in that case which involved a student activity funded university of virginia it was designed to encourage applies it to our case without any further guidance or analysis there is no other authority that i could find and certainly no authority that she cited to that applies the limited public forum doctrine to what is simply a name change procedural statute the statute that she's saying is a limited public forum doesn't encourage anyone to change their names doesn't provide any incentives like the rosenberg or case did it merely says for those that want to change their names legally these are the steps that you have to follow under the statutes if not a limited public forum there's no evidence in the record that the government intended to create a limited public forum when it passed that law and so this argument too must fail and so even if this court in summary were to consider ms crevasses arguments on the merits much like her failure to support her claim with law below each one of these theories that she had vance's is only unsupported by the authorities that she cites to and so for those reasons i would ask the court from the district court's judgment and if there are no to fail to register it is a felony to fail to report changes in your identifying information and what the supreme court made clear is packing carol is that the government cannot suppress no further explanation this is what i want to be call so whether you're changing your name because work for his gender because you got you got married you want to keep your spouse's name because you want to reflect a religious affiliation and changing your name communicates a message that requires no further information and it's that this is how i see myself this is what i call myself in this is what i want other people to call me  she it and that happened when she bowed but what's the evidence in the record i didn't see anything in the record saying she was questioned when she was voted about her identification well of course this just happened because she just voted for the st time in the primary miami and injury to prove to have standing to proceed here and there certainly some speculation and heard deposition testimony are in the evidence in the record but what's the concrete embarrassment but how far compelled speech theory how with that matter that the name that she use to which she strongly object is something she must disclose and every time she has to show her id she forces close something that raises questions cross or embarrassment and it forces her to say something she does not want to say and that's going to be around for the rest of her life so we'd ask that the district court