Supreme Court Rejects UC Law San Francisco Name Challenge
The nation's highest court will not review a lawsuit seeking to restore the school's former name.
Updated on Oct. 20, 2026 in Law

Live Poll
Should public institutions rename facilities to address the controversial history of their original namesakes?
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge against the 2023 renaming of UC Law San Francisco, formerly known as UC Hastings. This decision effectively ends the legal bid to force the school to revert to its historical title.
Why it matters
The lawsuit challenged the school's decision to drop the name of founder Serranus Clinton Hastings, who was linked to 19th-century genocide against the Yuki tribe. By refusing to review the case, the court maintains the current naming status established by state legislation.
Plaintiffs sought the return of the original $100,000 endowment plus interest, totaling $1.7 million. The total claim represents the inflation-adjusted value of the initial 1878 donation.
The players
UC Law San Francisco
Formerly known as UC Hastings, this institution was renamed in 2023 to distance itself from its founder.
Serranus Clinton Hastings
He was the founder of the law school and was linked to historical atrocities against the Yuki tribe.
U.S. Supreme Court
It is the highest judicial body in the United States and serves as the court of last resort for the nation.
The details
The institution was renamed through state legislation that repealed a prior mandate requiring the school to retain the Hastings name. Plaintiffs had argued the change was illegal and sought the return of the original 1878 endowment funds used to establish the campus.
Timeline
1878: Serranus Clinton Hastings donated $100,000 to establish the school.
2023: The name change to UC Law San Francisco officially took effect.
2024: A San Francisco court dismissed the initial lawsuit.
February 2026: The California Supreme Court declined to review the case.
October 19, 2026: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case.
Political Context
Opponents of the name change argue that the state legislation violated the original terms of the endowment and disregarded the historical legacy of the founder. They maintain that the removal of the name sets a concerning precedent for the honoring of historical donors and institutional heritage.
The school will continue to operate under its current name without the threat of further litigation regarding the endowment. For residents and students, this confirms the legal finality of the 2023 name change and the ongoing institutional identity of the law school.
The takeaway
This case underscores the legal complexities of renaming institutions in response to historical accountability efforts. The conclusion of this litigation solidifies the school's current identity and closes a multi-year challenge regarding its founding endowment.
Further reading
Find more updates on local legal disputes in our San Francisco Law section.
Live Poll
Should public institutions rename facilities to address the controversial history of their original namesakes?










