Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
408 U.S. 564 (1972)
Rule of Law:
The Fourteenth Amendment's procedural due process protections are triggered only when a government action deprives an individual of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. A non-tenured public employee's interest in re-employment is not a protected property interest unless they have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it, derived from a source like state law or contract, rather than a mere abstract desire or unilateral expectation.
Facts:
- Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh hired David Roth as an assistant professor for a fixed, single academic year term from September 1, 1968, to June 30, 1969.
- Roth's notice of appointment did not contain any provision for contract renewal.
- Under Wisconsin statutes, a state university teacher could only acquire tenure after four years of continuous employment; Roth, having completed only one year, had no tenure.
- State law and university rules left the decision of whether to rehire a non-tenured teacher to the complete discretion of university officials.
- The university's rules specified that no reason for non-retention of a non-tenured professor needed to be given, and no review or appeal was available.
- Before the contractual deadline, the President of the university informed Roth that he would not be rehired for the following academic year.
- The university did not provide Roth with any reason for the decision or an opportunity for a hearing to challenge it.
Procedural Posture:
- David Roth filed an action in the U.S. District Court against the Board of Regents of State Colleges.
- Roth alleged that the decision not to rehire him violated his procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and was in retaliation for his exercise of free speech under the First Amendment.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for Roth on the procedural due process claim, ordering university officials to provide him with reasons and a hearing.
- The Board of Regents (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of Roth (appellee).
- The Board of Regents petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause require a state university to provide a non-tenured professor with a statement of reasons and an opportunity for a hearing before deciding not to renew his one-year employment contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
No. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not require a hearing prior to the non-renewal of a non-tenured state teacher's contract unless he can show a deprivation of liberty or property. To determine if due process applies, courts must look to the nature of the interest at stake, not its weight. A 'liberty' interest is implicated if the state makes charges against an individual that might seriously damage their reputation or imposes a stigma that forecloses future employment opportunities; neither occurred here, as the university made no charges and did not bar Roth from other public employment. A 'property' interest requires more than a unilateral expectation; it requires a 'legitimate claim of entitlement' created and defined by an independent source like state law or contract. Roth's one-year contract explicitly provided an end date and made no provision for renewal, and no state statute or university policy created any entitlement to re-employment. Therefore, Roth had only an abstract desire for renewal, not a protected property interest.
Dissenting - Justice Douglas
Yes, Roth was entitled to due process protections. The crucial issue is not tenure, but whether the non-renewal was retaliation for Roth's exercise of First Amendment rights, such as his public criticism of the university administration. Non-renewal of a teacher's contract is a serious action that can be a 'blemish that turns into a permanent scar,' effectively limiting future employment. Without a statement of reasons and a hearing, there is no safeguard against the university's non-renewal being a pretext for punishing constitutionally protected speech. Due process requires that the state bear the burden of proving that any action denying a privilege was not based on protected speech.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes, Roth was denied due process. The terms 'liberty' and 'property' should be defined more broadly to recognize that government employment is a significant benefit that cannot be arbitrarily denied. Every citizen who applies for a government job is entitled to it unless the government can establish a fair reason for denying it; this entitlement is the 'property' right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Procedural due process is the fundamental guarantee against arbitrary and unreasonable government action. Requiring the government to state its reasons is not burdensome and is essential to ensure fairness and prevent errors, especially when a person's livelihood is at stake.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the 'legitimate claim of entitlement' test for determining whether a property interest in a government benefit exists. By rejecting the idea that a mere expectation or abstract need for a benefit is sufficient, the Court narrowed the scope of procedural due process protections for public employees. The decision created a clear distinction between tenured employees, who have a statutory or contractual claim to continued employment, and non-tenured employees, who generally do not. The ruling places the burden on the employee to identify a specific state law, contract provision, or official policy that creates an entitlement, thereby limiting federal court intervention in state and local employment decisions.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"