Board of Regents v. Roth
Legal Issues
BrynoDC Coverage 5 videos
TikTok Overview
Overview
The Court held that property interests requiring due process protection must be created by state law, not the Constitution itself.
Overview
The Court held that property interests requiring due process protection must be created by state law, not the Constitution itself.
The Facts
Facts
David Roth, a non-tenured assistant professor at Wisconsin State University, was not rehired after his one-year contract expired. The university provided no reason and no hearing. Roth sued, claiming the university violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by failing to provide notice and a hearing before terminating his employment.
Facts
David Roth, a non-tenured assistant professor at Wisconsin State University, was not rehired after his one-year contract expired. The university provided no reason and no hearing. Roth sued, claiming the university violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by failing to provide notice and a hearing before terminating his employment.
The Issue
Issue
Whether a non-tenured university professor possesses a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest in continued employment that triggers procedural due process rights before a decision not to renew the professor's contract.
Issue
Whether a non-tenured university professor possesses a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest in continued employment that triggers procedural due process rights before a decision not to renew the professor's contract.
The Rules
Rule
Under Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972), property interests protected by due process arise from independent sources, statutes, contracts, or policies, that create legitimate claims of entitlement, not mere unilateral expectations. A liberty interest may be implicated if a non-renewal decision stigmatizes the employee by foreclosing other employment opportunities or damages reputation in connection with the decision.
Rule
Under Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972), property interests protected by due process arise from independent sources, statutes, contracts, or policies, that create legitimate claims of entitlement, not mere unilateral expectations. A liberty interest may be implicated if a non-renewal decision stigmatizes the employee by foreclosing other employment opportunities or damages reputation in connection with the decision.
The Application
Analysis
Roth's one-year contract with the university created no constitutionally protected property interest in reemployment because it was explicitly limited in duration and did not constitute a promise of continued employment beyond its terms. Wisconsin state law and university policy provided no independent source creating a legitimate entitlement to renewal. Roth possessed only a contractual right to compensation during the contract year, not a claim of continuing employment. Although Roth had a reasonable expectation of rehiring based on his job performance and status as an assistant professor, the Court determined that subjective expectation alone cannot create a property interest; the source must be external law or policy, not unilateral wishes. Therefore, the university could decline to renew without satisfying procedural due process requirements, as there was no deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest in the first place.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held 5-3 that Roth had no protected property interest in reemployment because his contract was for a fixed term that expired. The Court established that the source of a property interest is state law or mutually explicit understandings, not the Constitution. Due process protections apply only to deprivations of interests created or recognized by existing state law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held 5-3 that Roth had no protected property interest in reemployment because his contract was for a fixed term that expired. The Court established that the source of a property interest is state law or mutually explicit understandings, not the Constitution. Due process protections apply only to deprivations of interests created or recognized by existing state law.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support