In a significant legal victory, the University of California College of the Law in San Francisco has successfully defended itself against a lawsuit to overturn its 2023 name change. This change came in the wake of an investigation into allegations surrounding the school’s former namesake, Serranus Hastings, and his purported involvement in the deaths of Native Americans on land he owned.
Lawsuit Dismissal by San Francisco Judge
A San Francisco judge recently dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the 1878 legislation that initially established the institution, then known as the University of California Hastings College of the Law, did not constitute a contract as claimed by the family of Serranus Hastings. Furthermore, the judge determined that the 2022 legislation implementing the name change did not violate the California Constitution, according to Superior Court Judge Richard Ulmer’s decision.
Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.
Legal Response and Future Plans
Attorney Gregory Michael, representing the Hastings descendants alongside Harmeet Dhillon, expressed determination to appeal the ruling despite the setback. The Hastings family remains resolute in their pursuit of justice, indicating that they are undeterred by the recent court decision.
Background: Serranus Hastings and Name Change
Serranus Hastings, a former California Supreme Court justice, established the law school in 1878 through a generous donation of $100,000. However, amidst growing scrutiny over Hastings’ historical actions, particularly allegations of orchestrating killings of Native Americans to clear land he owned in Northern California, the law school initiated a comprehensive review of his legacy. Subsequently, in 2022, the decision was made to disassociate from the Hastings name.
Legal Action and Rationale
A coalition of law school alumni and six descendants of Hastings filed a lawsuit in October 2022 against the state and school officials, contending that the name change violated the terms of the 1878 agreement between California and Hastings. Despite their arguments alleging breach of contract and misuse of taxpayer funds, Judge Ulmer concluded that the plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claims with sufficient factual evidence.
Legal Perspective
Eduardo Santacana, a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, which provided pro bono representation to the law school, emphasized the broader implications of the lawsuit. He highlighted the contention that the governance of a public institution should not be subject to commercial transactions, suggesting that the court’s decision upheld this principle.
This legal victory marks a significant milestone for the University of California College of Law, affirming its ability to navigate complex legal challenges while upholding its commitment to academic integrity and institutional values.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.
