Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand
303 U.S. 95, 58 S. Ct. 443 (1938)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that provides for teacher tenure upon the fulfillment of certain conditions, such as a period of service, creates a contractual right protected by the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which cannot be impaired by a subsequent legislative repeal of the statute.
Facts:
- In 1927, Indiana enacted the Teachers' Tenure Act, which granted 'permanent teacher' status with an 'indefinite contract' to any teacher who served for five or more successive years and entered into a subsequent contract.
- The petitioner, a public school teacher, taught continuously in a township school under successive contracts from 1924 through the 1933-1934 school year.
- Her contracts for the 1931-1932 and 1932-1933 school years explicitly incorporated the provisions of the 1927 Teachers' Tenure Act.
- By the terms of the 1927 Act, the petitioner had achieved the status of a permanent teacher with an indefinite contract, which could only be canceled for specific causes.
- In 1933, the Indiana legislature passed an act repealing the 1927 Tenure Law's application to township school corporations.
- Following the 1933 repeal, the respondent, a township trustee, sought to terminate the petitioner's employment at the end of the 1933-1934 school year, treating her as a teacher with a one-year contract rather than one with tenure.
Procedural Posture:
- The petitioner, a teacher, sought a writ of mandate in an Indiana state trial court to compel the respondent, a school official, to continue her employment.
- The respondent demurred to the complaint, arguing the tenure law had been repealed.
- The state trial court sustained the demurrer, dismissing the teacher's case.
- The petitioner appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court.
- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the repeal of the tenure law was constitutional.
- The petitioner sought and the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari.
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 a state law that repeals a teacher tenure statute, thereby removing employment protections for teachers who had already attained tenure status, violate the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Roberts
Yes, a state law that repeals a teacher tenure statute violates the Contracts Clause when applied to teachers who have already attained tenure status. The Court found that the Indiana Teachers' Tenure Act of 1927 created a binding contract with teachers who met its requirements. The Act's repeated use of the word 'contract,' its stated purpose of providing employment security, and its creation of an 'indefinite contract' all indicated a legislative intent to form a contractual relationship rather than merely to state a public policy. Prior decisions by the Indiana Supreme Court had also treated the tenure right as contractual. The subsequent repeal of this law for township teachers impaired the obligation of that contract. The repeal was not a valid exercise of the state's police power, as the original act already provided sufficient grounds for dismissal for cause, and the repeal appeared aimed only at allowing termination for political or personal reasons, which is not a legitimate public end justifying the impairment of a contract.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
No, the repeal of the tenure statute does not violate the Contracts Clause. The dissent argued that the power to regulate public education is a sovereign function of the state, and one legislature cannot bind future legislatures by creating unchangeable policy. The Indiana Supreme Court had determined that the teacher's tenure was a statutory privilege, not a contractual right, and this Court should defer to the state court's interpretation of its own laws. The presumption should be that such laws declare a public policy that can be altered at will, rather than create private, vested contract rights. To hold otherwise unconstitutionally transfers the power to determine the state's educational policy from the Indiana legislature to the federal judiciary.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that public employment tenure, when granted by a statute using contractual language, can create a vested right protected by the Contracts Clause. It significantly limits a state's power to retroactively eliminate such benefits once an employee has fulfilled the conditions to earn them. The ruling also affirms the Supreme Court's authority to make an independent judgment on the existence of a contract for constitutional purposes, even if it contradicts the interpretation of the state's highest court. This precedent has been crucial in protecting the tenure and pension rights of public employees against subsequent legislative changes.
Unlock the full brief for Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand