Serranus Clinton Hastings (S.C. Hastings) was the first Chief Justice of California and California’s third Attorney General. In 1878, S.C. Hastings sought to establish the first law school on the West Coast, and the California Legislature enacted “An Act to Create Hastings’ College of the Law, in the University of the State of California.” The Act provided that the College would be governed by an independent board of directors and that the directors would always provide a seat for an heir or representative of S.C. Hastings.
In 2017, allegations that S.C. Hastings engaged in fomenting violence and atrocities against Native Americans living in present-day Mendocino County began to emerge.
On January 1, 2023, California Assembly Bill No. 1936 went into effect, changing the name of what was formerly known as UC Hastings College of the Law to UC College of the Law San Francisco. AB 1936 also deleted section 92204 of the Education Code that previously required one member of the College’s board of directors to be an heir or representative of S.C. Hastings.
The Hastings College Conservation Committee and various individual descendants of S.C. Hastings sued the State of California and the College’s dean and directors, challenging AB 1936. The complaint sought clarification on whether the legislature had the authority to change the name of the College and remove its hereditary board seat. The Plaintiffs alleged that AB 1936 contained multiple unconstitutional provisions and breached the agreement between the State of California and S.C. Hastings and his descendants in the Act. The Plaintiffs therefore also sought injunctive relief to stop the legislature and College from implementing the alleged unconstitutional provisions of the bill, including spending taxpayer funds to change the College’s name or to eliminate the hereditary board seat.
The trial court dismissed the case. Plaintiffs appealed the decision. On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the State entered into a complete contract with S.C. Hasting concerning the College’s establishment, name, funding, and governance; that the California Legislature set forth these terms in an agreement in its 1878 Act; and that the enactment of AB 1936 impermissibly impaired the State’s obligation under the agreement. Defendants countered that the Act was not a contract.
The appellate court first reviewed the reserved powers doctrine. The reserved powers doctrine holds that a state government may not contract away a power that is inherent to a state simply by virtue of being a sovereign. The legislative power of a state is an essential attribute. Therefore, the United States Supreme Court has held that when a state is enacting legislation that involves the public interest, its power is absolute. A state cannot contract away its right to enact legislation. Here, the court found that the college was a public institution, and the management of the school was a matter of public interest. The court therefore determined the State could not have contracted away sovereign authority to change the name of the college or to remove the hereditary board seat. The 1878 Act did not, and could not, contractually obligate the state to provide a hereditary board seat.
The Plaintiffs also alleged that by changing the College’s name and eliminating the hereditary board seat, AB 1936 constituted a “bill of attainder” and an “ex post facto” law.
A bill of attainder is “punishment” directly inflicted by the legislature on a person or specified class for an action or status taken or existing before the date of enactment. The United States Constitution prohibits bills of attainder. The appellate court found that the trial court properly dismissed the case because the bill does not punish plaintiffs, as AB 1936 did not take their property, interfere with their rights, or damage their property.
An ex-post facto law is one that retroactively alters the definition of crimes or increases the punishment for criminal acts. and is prohibited by the United States and California Constitutions. Generally, prohibitions on ex post facto laws apply only to criminal statutes. Here, as AB 1936 is a civil law, the court found that the trial court again properly dismissed the case.
Finally, the court found that the State did not violate Article IX Section 9 of the California Constitution, requiring that the UC system be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence, because the College’s Board invited this change and nothing in the provision prohibits the Board from requesting Legislative changes to the Act.
The appellate court held plaintiffs failed to show that AB 1936 unconstitutionally gave away power, nor that the bill imposed a punishment historically associated with a bill of attainder.
Hastings College Conservation Committee v. State of California, (Oct. 15, 2025, No. A170255) 115 Cal. App. 5th 272 [2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 665].