The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a last-ditch challenge from descendants of Serranus C. Hastings, closing the book on a years-long legal fight over the removal of his name from San Francisco's 148-year-old law school. The justices denied review in Hastings College Conservation Committee v. State of California, case 25-1231, issuing a one-sentence order with no indication of dissents.
The dispute traces back to 2023, when the school formerly known as Hastings College of the Law became UC College of the Law, San Francisco, after the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1936. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Assemblymember James Ramos sponsored the bill. According to the Los Angeles Times, Ramos — the first Native American elected to the state Assembly — introduced the measure, which was co-sponsored by Assemblymember Phil Ting and signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September 2022.
Six descendants of Hastings and a group of alumni sued California, accusing the state of violating a binding contract. The Chronicle's report notes the plaintiffs sought return of the original $100,000 gift plus interest, which they calculated at $1.7 million — though the Los Angeles Times reported a compounded demand of $1.7 billion, based on the original terms' 7% annual interest rate.
A Founder's Legacy Under Scrutiny
Serranus C. Hastings was California's first Chief Justice and later state Attorney General, in addition to being a rancher who committed $100,000 to establish the law school in 1878. California law at the time declared the school would forever be known as Hastings College of the Law. Per the Chronicle's reporting, Hastings blamed tribes for attacking his cattle and sent militia troops who killed Native Americans in Mendocino County, with the outlet reporting he ordered troops to slaughter thousands of Native Americans in the 1860s.
That history drew formal institutional scrutiny in 2017, when Chancellor David Faigman organized the Hastings Legacy Review Committee after a local op-ed detailed Hastings' history, according to CBS San Francisco. The committee's work culminated in a 2020 report documenting Hastings' role in financing the militia massacres, the station reported.
Courts Reject the Contract Claim
California courts repeatedly ruled the 1878 law was not a contract but an ordinary statute subject to repeal. Attorney Richard Ulmer said in 2024 that the original law authorized Hastings to found the college but did not require the state to keep his name attached permanently, according to the Chronicle's account. A California appeals court agreed that the 1878 law did not bind the state to preserve the name indefinitely, and the California Supreme Court subsequently left that ruling intact.
On October 15, 2025, California's First District Court of Appeal issued a unanimous decision authored by Justice Jeremy M. Goldman, holding that the state retained sovereign authority to manage and rename public institutions and that 19th-century statutory mandates do not bind future legislatures, per the USA Herald. The court rejected the plaintiffs' claims under the Contract Clause and prohibitions on bills of attainder. The state Supreme Court later denied a petition for review without comment, closing off state-level appeals before the case reached the nation's highest court.
Dueling Arguments From Both Sides
Attorney Gregory Michael, representing the plaintiffs through Dhillon Law Group, called the Supreme Court's decision disappointing and said the litigation sought to vindicate constitutional principles and preserve Judge Hastings' legacy against legislative action he believed exceeded constitutional limits. Michael denied that Hastings ordered mass killings of Native Americans, arguing instead that Hastings sought to deploy the militia to protect livestock and that the militia acted independently in committing atrocities. He told the court that allowing a state to tear up agreements after rewriting history by legislative decree renders constraints on state power meaningless, maintaining that California should remain bound by its 1878 agreement to name the school after Hastings.
Attorney Joshua Anderson countered that the law school could act after evidence was presented that Hastings funded and fomented genocide of Native Californians. Attorney Tara Siegel added that state legislatures may not bargain away their duties to regulate public matters. Law firm Cooley LLP represented the school's board of directors throughout the litigation.
Bill Kisliuk, a spokesperson for the law school, said officials welcomed the conclusion of the case and that UC Law San Francisco remains focused on providing students the best legal education. The school counts former Vice President Kamala Harris and former San Francisco Mayor and Assembly Speaker Willie Brown among its alumni.
Restorative Justice Alongside the Renaming
Beyond the symbolic name change, AB 1936 specified several restorative justice initiatives, including pro bono legal aid for tribal courts and dedicated scholarships for members of the Round Valley Indian Tribes, according to UC Law SF. The school has also worked to establish an Indigenous Law Center, which is active. School leaders worked directly with tribal leadership on those commitments as the renaming moved through the Legislature.
The resolution of the naming dispute comes as UC Law SF continues reshaping its physical footprint in San Francisco's Civic Center. In bold Tenderloin expansion move, the school agreed in April to house San Francisco State University's graduate business school within its Tenderloin Academic Village at 198 McAllister Street, with San Francisco State University planning to move the programs into the space in July 2026 and classes beginning the following month, continuing years of academic and physical growth in the neighborhood.
