Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

Thursday, October 16, 2025

 

Page 1

 

Court of Appeal:

Legislature Had Power to Drop ‘Hastings’ From School’s Name

Justices Cite ‘Reserved Powers Doctrine,’ Avoid Discussion of Contracts Clauses

 

By a MetNews Staff Writer

 

The Legislature lawfully changed the name of “Hastings College of the Law” to “College of the Law, San Francisco” Div. Four of the First District Court of Appeal held yesterday.

In so holding, it sidestepped the plaintiffs’ contention that this violated the condition of a gift of $100,000 from the state’s chief justice, Serranus Clinton Hastings, that the school be named after him in perpetuity. In 1878, the Legislature enacted legislation providing that “S.C. Hastings be authorized to found and establish a Law College, to be forever known and designated as ‘Hastings’ College of the Law’ ” and the institution—the first law school on the west coast—cane into existence after Hastings paid over the promised money to the state treasury.

The plaintiffs argued that the renaming of the college violates the state and federal contracts clauses. However, Justice Jeremy M. Goldman wrote:

“[W]e find it unnecessary to decide whether the language of the Act or the history and circumstances of its adoption evince the requisite intent to contract because we agree with defendants that, under the reserved powers doctrine…, the Legislature could not contract away sovereign authority to manage a public institution like the College.”

The opinion also upholds scratching out a portion of the Education Code specifying that a member of the school’s “shall always be an heir or representative of S.C. Hastings.”

Trial Court Decision

Goldman’s opinion upholds a judgment of dismissal by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard B. Ulmer that followed his sustaining a demurrer, without leave to amend, to the complaint filed by the Hastings College Conservation Committee, comprised of alumni and descendants of Hastings. Ulmer found that there is no evidence that the Legislature intended to enter into a contract with Hastings.

The Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1936 in 2022 changing the name of the institution in light of concerns that had been engendered by a 2017 article in the San Francisco Chronicle titled “The Moral Case for Renaming Hastings College of the Law.” It alleged that Hastings had been behind the massacre of Native Americans in what is now Mendocino County—an allegation that was probed in official proceedings, and rejected, in Hastings’s lifetime.

The college, itself, sought the name change.

Reserved Powers Doctrine

Goldman cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1996 opinion in United States v. Winstar Corp. There, then-Justice David Souter (now retired) said that under the “reserved powers doctrine,” the government of a state “may not contract away ‘an essential attribute of its sovereignty.”

The Court of Appeal justice wrote:

“And what is at issue here is sovereign authority to manage a public entity: There is no dispute that the Act established the College as a public institution affiliated with the University of California, which exercises the powers of the State.”

He elaborated in a footnote:

“[T]he Legislature does possess the authority to change the name at the College’s request, and in any event, the authority to manage the College is an essential attribute of state sovereignty that may not be bargained away by any public entity.”

Bill of Attainder

Rejecting further arguments by the plaintiffs, Goldman said AB 1936 “does not punish plaintiffs within the meaning of the bill of attainder clause” which proscribes punishment of individual through legislation. He noted that Hastings “died generations ago and is therefore not a party to this lawsuit” and rejected the contention by his descendants that they have standing to assert his interests, pointing out that “their complaint does not allege that they are acting in any capacity other than as individuals or that they are bringing this claim on his behalf.”

Goldman wrote that the legislation “does not take their property, interfere with their rights, or damage their reputations” and that their “effort to liken themselves to heirs disinherited by the ‘corruption of blood’ and to claim standing on that basis is not persuasive.”

He reasoned that the purpose of the legislation was not to punish Hastings or his descendants but “to address the injustice inflicted on the Yuki people and the Native American people of the state and to begin the healing process for the crimes of the past.”

Also found lacking in merit was the argument that AB 1936 constituted ex post facto legislation.

 “The elimination of the hereditary board seat is entirely consistent with the Board’s resolution” calling for restorative justice, Goldman said.

The case is Hastings College Conservation Committee v. State of California, A170255.

 

Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company