Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth

Argued January 18, 1972
Decided June 29, 1972

Full case name:	Board of Regents of State Colleges, et al. v. Roth

Citations:	408 U.S. 564; 408 U.S. 564

Holding

Court membership

Case opinions

Majority by: Stewart
Joined by: Burger, White, Blackmun, Rehnquist
Concurrence by: Burger
Dissent by: Douglas
Dissent by: Brennan
Joined by: Douglas
Dissent by: Marshall
Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Laws applied

U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV

Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court concerning alleged discrimination against a nontenured teacher at Wisconsin State University in Oshkosh.

David Roth was hired as a first year assistant professor of political science in 1968 for a fixed term of one year. Rules promulgated by the Board of Regents provided that a nontenured teacher "dismissed" before the end of the year could have some opportunity for review of the "dismissal". The President of the University informed Roth he would not be rehired for the next academic year but gave him no reason for the decision and no opportunity to challenge it in any sort of hearing. Roth brought suit in Federal District Court alleging that he was being punished for statements he had made that critical of the University administration and that the decision not to rehire him violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. He also alleged that the University's failure to provide a hearing violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process of law.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Stewart, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require an 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.

Justice Douglas dissented, writing "When a violation of First Amendment rights is alleged, the reasons for dismissal or for nonrenewal of an employment contract must be examined to see if the reasons given are only a cloak for activity or attitudes protected by the Constitution."

Justice Marshall wrote a separate dissent saying, "every citizen who applies for a government job is entitled to it unless the government can establish some reason for denying the employment."