Supreme Court Rejects California Law School Renaming Challenge

The high court declined to hear a case regarding the legal removal of the Hastings name from a San Francisco law school.

Updated on Oct. 29, 2026 in Law

Bold flat-color editorial illustration of a neoclassical courthouse facade, representing a legal judicial decision. — The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to California's law renaming the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, leaving the change in effect. AI Illustration. Upload story photo >

Live Poll

Should public institutions be permitted to rename facilities due to controversies involving their original namesakes?

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge against California's decision to rename the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. The dispute arose after state legislation removed the name of founder Serranus Clinton Hastings due to his involvement in violence against Indigenous tribes.

Why it matters

The decision leaves intact California's legislative action to remove the school's historical name and hereditary board seats. It upholds lower court rulings that dismissed challenges concerning contract law and the legality of the state's legislative process.

Serranus Clinton Hastings provided a $100,000 contribution to establish the school in 1878. California Assembly Bill 1936, which formalized the renaming, took effect on January 1, 2023.

The players

Serranus Clinton Hastings

He was a 19th-century politician and judge who founded the law school that bears his name.

Gavin Newsom

He is the Governor of California who signed Assembly Bill 1936 into law in 2022.

U.S. Supreme Court

This is the highest federal court in the United States which effectively ended the challenge by declining to hear the appeal.

The details

The college sought to change its name after allegations surfaced that Hastings participated in orchestrating violence against Indian tribes in Mendocino County. Descendants of Hastings and an alumni association had sued the state, but California courts consistently rejected claims that the law violated contract rights or constituted an invalid bill of attainder.

1878: Serranus Clinton Hastings funded the law school.
November 2, 2021: The college adopted a resolution to rename the institution.
January 1, 2023: Assembly Bill 1936 took effect.
October 29, 2026: The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Political Context

Opponents of the renaming argued that the state law violated fundamental contract rights established at the school's founding. This legal pushback highlights the tension between legislative efforts to address historical legacies and the preservation of long-standing contractual agreements.

The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case finalizes the legal status of the school's name and governing structure. For the general public and students, this confirms that the name change remains permanent and valid under state law.

The takeaway

The court's inaction confirms that California holds the authority to modify the names and structures of public educational institutions despite past financial contributions. This serves as a significant precedent for other institutions weighing the removal of names tied to historical injustices.