Renaming Streets “Cesar Chavez Boulevard” Didn’t Violate First Amendment

From 1 Community Compact v. City of Fresno, decided Friday by California Court of Appeal Justice Jennifer Detjen, joined by Justice Donald Franson:

Emphasizing the “profound impact” of Mexican-American labor leader and civil rights activist Cesar Chavez “on the people of Fresno” and concluding the renaming of a downtown thoroughfare in his honor would “provide a source of pride and community recognition,” the Fresno City Council … adopted Resolution No. 2023-056, which facilitated the renaming of the “East Kings Canyon Road, East Ventura Avenue, and West California Avenue alignment” (collectively, the Alignment) to Cesar Chavez Boulevard.

Plaintiffs objected to the renaming and then sued, among other things arguing thus:

The operative complaint alleges the following. The Alignment is composed of three streets “decidedly historical to [City]’s rich history.” East Ventura Avenue, which was named in 1873, “has always been the heart of [City’s] Armenian Community” and “was known as Armenian Town.” West California Avenue, which was named in 1881, is “the heart” of City’s African-American community. East Kings Canyon Road, which “is over 70 years old,” “has always been known to residents and tourists alike as the gateway to the Sierras and Kings Canyon National Park.”

Cesar Chavez, who was “not a Fresno native and never lived in Fresno,” “has never been integral to nor associated with any of these [three] historical streets.” He was also a “divisive” and “objectionable political figure” who “alienated many farmers, packing houses and grocery stores and retaliated against those who did not join his union.”

Plaintiff “is an unincorporated grass roots association with [more than 1,000] members who live, own, or operate a business on the historic … streets of [East] Kings Canyon Rd., [East] Ventura Ave., or [West] California Ave., and/or who reside or have businesses in the immediate vicinity of said streets.” Plaintiff’s members viewed the renaming of the Alignment as City’s attempt to “erase or rewrite” “their personal or business history”; lamented “the enormous costs to each business or property owner, operator, tenant, and residents when the street name is changed”; and stressed only they were required to bear the “cultural and financial burden and impact in renaming [the Alignment]” and “propagate, echo, and spread … City’s message [about Cesar Chavez].”

Many members who reside on or near the Alignment “intentionally purchased their homes specifically because they were on those [three] streets and have lived there most of their lives.” “Those street names are part of their identity, tradition, and everyday lives” and members “had every reason to believe those street names would remain the same, and never change.” As a result of the renaming, these members were “uprooted and forever changed.” Furthermore, they needed to devote “substantial” “time and expense” to change their addresses on [various documents]….

Many members who own and/or operate businesses and property on the Alignment “built their businesses specifically on one of those [three] streets, because of its location, street name and the street’s reputation.” “The street name became part of their identity and goodwill and were advantageous to their businesses, were part of their sense of pride, and were proudly identifiable with them.” These members “had every expectation that when they moved their business, or opened, or built their businesses on one of those [three] streets, that the name would never change.”

“The concept of, and identification with, Cesar Chavez [Boulevard] substantially impairs their goodwill and identity, and business model, and will have the tendency to make the public and customers believe they desired to have their business on Cesar Chavez [Boulevard] and consented to it.” Moreover, “[f]or business owners a change of address is a very costly and time-consuming project.” “Many will be required to remove exterior or street-front signage, which costs thousands of dollars and will have a greater impact if the street name is a part of the business name.” …

As it happens, in March 2026, the City Council changed the street names back because of “credible historical sources and public statements [that] have brought renewed attention to serious allegations regarding Cesar Chavez’s personal conduct, including accusations of sexual misconduct and abusive behavior toward colleagues and members of the farmworker community.” The court, though, concluded that it should resolve plaintiffs’ claims rather than find them moot (Justice Kathleen Meehan dissented on this score). And the court concluded—correctly, I think—that this was permissible speech by the government, rather than an unconstitutional compulsion of private speech:

[T]he facts alleged were insufficient to establish plaintiff’s members were compelled to espouse or suppress certain ideas and beliefs. That plaintiff’s members had to reside or run a business on or near the renamed Cesar Chavez Boulevard and/or update their addresses to reflect this street name instead of East Kings Canyon Road, East Ventura Avenue, or West California Avenue, which ensured their homes or enterprises could be physically located, “is simply not the same as forcing a student to pledge allegiance, or forcing a Jehovah’s Witness to display the motto ‘Live Free or Die ….'” Also, … the instant case did not involve a government measure that punished or threatened to punish plaintiff’s members’ protected speech by regulatory, proscriptive, or compulsory action. Far from becoming “instrument[s] for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view [they] find[ ] unacceptable,” plaintiff’s members “remained free to express [their opposing] views publicly and to criticize ….”

Plaintiff points out its members were “singled out” to shoulder the “administrative burden” of the Alignment’s renaming [apparently on the grounds that the law specially burdened those who lived and owned businesses on those streets -EV]. This, however, is immaterial to a free speech claim…. “The inquiry for First Amendment purposes is not concerned with economic impact; rather, it looks only to the effect of th[e] [government action] upon freedom of expression.” … “… Governing requires policy choices to be made. And in carrying out those choices, government must speak—and the First Amendment does not constrain what it says.” …

Plaintiff insists the renaming of the Alignment is “completely arbitrary and unreasonable” because, among other things, (1) Cesar Chavez “was not born in Fresno”; “was not raised in Fresno”; “never lived in Fresno”; “was not part of the [B]lack community of [West] California Ave[nue] nor the Armenian Community of [East] Ventura Ave[nue]”; and had no “association” with either East Kings Canyon Road, East Ventura Avenue, or West California Avenue; (2) the renaming was politically motivated (3) the reach of the renaming was limited to “[City’s] south end”; and (4) other streets (e.g., “Blackstone, Shaw, Van Ness or Olive”) had “a lot more drivers, businesses and residents” and—if renamed instead of the Alignment—would have had “more eyeballs seeing [the Cesar Chavez Boulevard] street signs.”

None of these reasons convince us to overturn City’s action. “A court is not concerned with the wisdom or policy of the law [enacted under police power] and cannot substitute its judgment for that of the legislative body. If reasonable minds might differ as to the reasonableness of the regulation, the law must be upheld.” …

Anthony R. Taylor and Michael R. Linden (Aleshire & Wynder) represent the city.