408 U.S. 564 (1972), 71-162, Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth

Docket Nº:No. 71-162
Citation:408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548
Party Name:Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
Case Date:June 29, 1972
Court:United States Supreme Court

Page 564

408 U.S. 564 (1972)

92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548

Board of Regents of State Colleges

v.

Roth

No. 71-162

United States Supreme Court

June 29, 1972

Argued January 18, 1972

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Respondent, hired for a fixed term of one academic year to teach at a state [92 S.Ct. 2703] university, was informed without explanation that he would not be rehired for the ensuing year. A statute provided that all state university teachers would be employed initially on probation, and that only after four years' continuous service would teachers achieve permanent employment "during efficiency and good behavior," with procedural protection against separation. University rules gave a nontenured teacher "dismissed" before the end of the year some opportunity for review of the "dismissal," but provided that no reason need be given for nonretention of a nontenured teacher, and no standards were specified for reemployment. Respondent brought this action claiming deprivation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, alleging infringement of (1) his free speech right because the true reason for his nonretention was his criticism of the university administration, and (2) his procedural due process right because of the university's failure to advise him of the reason for its decision. The District Court granted summary judgment for the respondent on the procedural issue. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: The Fourteenth Amendment does not require opportunity for a hearing prior to the nonrenewal of a nontenured state teacher's contract unless he can show that the nonrenewal deprived him of an interest in "liberty" or that he had a "property" interest in continued employment, despite the lack of tenure or a formal contract. Here, the nonretention of respondent, absent any charges against him or stigma or disability foreclosing other employment, is not tantamount to a deprivation of "liberty," and the terms of respondent's employment accorded him no "property" interest protected by procedural due process. The courts below therefore erred in granting summary judgment for the respondent on the procedural due process issue. Pp. 569-579.

446 F.2d 806, reversed and remanded.

Page 565

STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, BLACKMUN, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. BURGER C.J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 603. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 579. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which DOUGLAS, J., joined, post, p. 604. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 587. POWELL, J., took no part in the decision of the case

Page 566

STEWART, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 1968, the respondent, David Roth, was hired for his first teaching job as assistant professor of political science at Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh. He was hired for a fixed term of one academic year. The notice of his faculty appointment specified that his employment would begin on September 1, 1968, and would end on June 30, 1969.1 The respondent completed that term. But he was informed that he would not be rehired for the next academic year.

The respondent had no tenure rights to continued employment. Under Wisconsin statutory law, a state university teacher can acquire tenure as a "permanent" employee only after four years of year-to-year employment. Having acquired tenure, a teacher is entitled to continued employment "during efficiency and good behavior." A relatively new teacher without tenure, however, is, under Wisconsin law, entitled to nothing [92 S.Ct. 2704] beyond his one-year appointment.2 There are no statutory

Page 567

or administrative standards defining eligibility for reemployment. State law thus clearly leaves the decision whether to rehire a nontenured teacher for another year to the unfettered discretion of university officials.

The procedural protection afforded a Wisconsin State University teacher before he is separated from the University corresponds to his job security. As a matter of statutory law, a tenured teacher cannot be "discharged except for cause upon written charges" and pursuant to certain procedures.3 A nontenured teacher, similarly, is protected to some extent during his one-year term. Rules promulgated by the Board of Regents provide that a nontenured teacher "dismissed" before the end of the year may have some opportunity for review of the "dismissal." But the Rules provide no real protection for a nontenured teacher who simply is not reemployed for the next year. He must be informed by February 1 "concerning retention or nonretention for the ensuing year." But "no reason for non-retention need be given. No review or appeal is provided in such case."4

Page 568

In conformance with these Rules, the President of Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh informed the respondent before February 1, 1969, that he would not be rehired for the 1969-1970 academic year. He gave the respondent no reason for the decision and no opportunity to challenge it at any sort of hearing.

The respondent then brought this action in Federal District Court alleging that the decision not to rehire him for the next year infringed his Fourteenth Amendment rights. He attacked the decision both in substance and procedure. First, he alleged that the true reason for the decision was to punish him for certain statements critical of the University administration, and that it therefore violated his right to freedom of speech.5

Page 569

Second, he alleged that the failure of University officials to give him notice of any reason for nonretention and an opportunity for a hearing violated his right, to procedural due process of law.

The District Court granted summary judgment for the respondent on the procedural issue, ordering the University officials to provide him with reasons and a hearing. 310 F.Supp. 972. The Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, affirmed this partial summary judgment. 446 F.2d 806. We granted certiorari. 404 U.S. 909. The only question presented to us at this stage in the case is whether the respondent had a constitutional right to a statement of reasons and a hearing on the University's decision not to rehire him for another year.6 We hold that he did not.

I

The requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty and property. When protected interests are implicated, the right

Page 570

to some kind of prior hearing is paramount.7 But the range of interests protected by procedural due process is not infinite.

The District Court decided that procedural due process guarantees apply in this case by assessing and balancing the weights of the particular interests involved. It concluded that the respondent's interest in reemployment at Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh outweighed the University's interest in denying him reemployment summarily. 310 F.Supp. at 977-979. Undeniably, the respondent's reemployment prospects were of major concern to him -- concern that we surely cannot say was insignificant. And a weighing process has long been a part of any determination of the form of hearing required in particular situations by procedural due process.8 But, to determine whether

Page 571

due process requirements apply in the first place, we must look not to the "weight," but to the nature, of the interest at stake. See Morrissey v. Brewer, ante at 481. We must look to see if the interest is within the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty and property.

"Liberty" and "property" are broad and majestic terms. They are among the

[g]reat [constitutional] concepts . . . purposely left to gather meaning from experience. . . . [T]hey relate to the whole domain of social and economic fact, and the statesmen who founded this Nation knew too well that only a stagnant society remains unchanged.

National Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Co., 337 U.S. 582, 646 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). For that reason, the Court has fully and finally rejected the wooden distinction between "rights" and "privileges" that once seemed to govern the applicability of procedural due process rights.9 The Court has also made clear that the property interests protected by

Page 572

procedural due process extend well beyond actual ownership of real estate, chattels, or money.10 By the same token, the Court has required due process protection for deprivations of liberty beyond the sort of formal constraints imposed by the criminal process.11

Yet, while the Court has eschewed rigid or formalistic limitations on the protection of procedural due process, it has at the same time observed certain boundaries. For the words "liberty" and "property" in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment must be given some meaning.

II

While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty . . . guaranteed [by the Fourteenth Amendment], the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely [92 S.Ct. 2707] freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized . . . as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399. In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of "liberty" must be broad indeed. See, e.g., Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499-500; Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645.

Page 573

There might be cases in which a State refused to reemploy a person under such circumstances...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
13157 practice notes
  • 14 F.3d 1243 (7th Cir. 1994), 93-1414, Kim Const. Co., Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Village of Mundelein
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    • January 31, 1994
    ...the award of a municipal contract, an individual must have a "legitimate claim of entitlement to it." Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). A property Page 1246 interest for purposes of the Due Process Clause is created by "e......
  • 143 B.R. 973 (D.R.I. 1992), 92, Darr v. Muratore
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 1st Circuit District of Rhode Island
    • August 25, 1992
    ...there is a taking of a protected interest and sufficient state involvement to invoke due process guarantees. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2704, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Chrysler Corp., 670 F.2d at 1321. The Rhode Island lis pendens procedure meets neither First,......
  • 218 F.Supp.2d 295 (E.D.N.Y. 2002), Civ.A. 99-0112, Rafiy v. Nassau County Medical Center
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 2nd Circuit Eastern District of New York
    • September 5, 2002
    ...the Fourteenth Amendment. To determine whether a property interest exists, courts often look to state law. E.g., Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) . Page 303 In the Second Circuit, the test is whether the claimant has a "clear entitlement&q......
  • 262 F.Supp.2d 608 (D.Md. 2003), Civ. JFM-02-3147, Lewis v. Board of Educ. of Talbot County
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 4th Circuit District of Maryland
    • May 7, 2003
    ...96 S.Ct. 2074, 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976) (referring to state law to define property interest); Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 578, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (holding plaintiff must have a legitimate claim of entitlement to the benefit for it to qualify as a......
  • Free signup to view additional results
12987 cases
  • 14 F.3d 1243 (7th Cir. 1994), 93-1414, Kim Const. Co., Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Village of Mundelein
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    • January 31, 1994
    ...the award of a municipal contract, an individual must have a "legitimate claim of entitlement to it." Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). A property Page 1246 interest for purposes of the Due Process Clause is created by "e......
  • 143 B.R. 973 (D.R.I. 1992), 92, Darr v. Muratore
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 1st Circuit District of Rhode Island
    • August 25, 1992
    ...there is a taking of a protected interest and sufficient state involvement to invoke due process guarantees. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2704, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Chrysler Corp., 670 F.2d at 1321. The Rhode Island lis pendens procedure meets neither First,......
  • 218 F.Supp.2d 295 (E.D.N.Y. 2002), Civ.A. 99-0112, Rafiy v. Nassau County Medical Center
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 2nd Circuit Eastern District of New York
    • September 5, 2002
    ...the Fourteenth Amendment. To determine whether a property interest exists, courts often look to state law. E.g., Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) . Page 303 In the Second Circuit, the test is whether the claimant has a "clear entitlement&q......
  • 262 F.Supp.2d 608 (D.Md. 2003), Civ. JFM-02-3147, Lewis v. Board of Educ. of Talbot County
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 4th Circuit District of Maryland
    • May 7, 2003
    ...96 S.Ct. 2074, 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976) (referring to state law to define property interest); Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 578, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (holding plaintiff must have a legitimate claim of entitlement to the benefit for it to qualify as a......
  • Free signup to view additional results
8 firm's commentaries
  • Does the ex parte issuance of a cease and desist order violate the civil rights of an MLM company.
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • April 17, 1980
    ...sales scheme does not rise to the level of a “property” interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). Had the State summarily revoked a previously granted license to engage in, or other approval of, a specif......
  • Dealing with Physicians' Misconduct at the Hospital
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • April 21, 2004
    ...Hospital Authority, 959 F.Supp. 729 (W.D.N.C. 1997). Citing the†Supreme Court's decision in Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569†(1972), the Aluko court noted that "where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is†at stake because of what the gove......
  • Treatment of Bitcoin Under U.S. Property Law
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • March 30, 2017
    ...Co., 455 U.S. 422, 430 (1982) (citing various examples in which property interest was found). 4 Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972); see also Logan, 455 U.S. at 430 (emphasizing that “the hallmark of property” is “an individual entitlement grounded in state law”......
  • Reimbursement and Payor Dispute Update -Federal Cases Offer Medicare-Enrolled Providers Possible Injunctive Relief from Recoupments While Awaiting Administrative Appeal
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • November 1, 2019
    ...v. Azar, No. 4:18-CV-02173-DCC, 2018 WL 4625791, at *7 (D.S.C. Sept. 27, 2018) 24 Id., quoting Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972). 25 Blue Valley Hosp., Inc. v. Azar, 322 F. Supp. 3d 1149, 1167 (D. Kan. 2018), aff’d, 919 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2019). 26 See Ang......
  • Free signup to view additional results
120 books & journal articles
  • A "Primer"
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review Nbr. 61-1, October 2000
    • October 1, 2000
    ...with area teachers. Deborah Sharp, Elementary School Kids Keep La. Law on Their Lips But the 'Yes, Sir' Law Gets No Respect from Critics, USA Today, Oct. 4, 1999, at A3. [70] Deborah Sharp, Elementary School Kids Keep La. Law on Their Lips But the 'Yes, Sir' Law Gets No Respect from Critics, USA ......
  • The Activist Insecurity and the Demise of Civil Rights Law
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review Nbr. 63-3, April 2003
    • April 1, 2003
    ...stages: (1) when an injury is a deprivation of rights, see Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 96 S. Ct. 1155 (1976) and Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S. Ct. 2701 (1972); (2) when an actor "deprives" a plaintiff of a right, compare Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S. Ct. 1......
  • The constitutional duty to supervise.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 124 Nbr. 6, April - April 2015
    • April 1, 2015
    ...structures are adequate to achieve, on average, a socially tolerable level of accuracy...."). (121.) Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972). (122.) See, e.g., Lightfoot v. District of Columbia, 448 F.3D 392, 400-01 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Silberman, J., concurring). Preclusion of p......
  • The lost "effects" of the Fourth Amendment: giving personal property due protection.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 125 Nbr. 4, February - February 2016
    • February 1, 2016
    ...Dep't. of Envtl. Prot., 560 U.S. 702, 715 (2010); Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1029-30 (1992); Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972) ("Property interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defin......
  • Free signup to view additional results