408 U.S. 564, 589 (1972)
In 1968 the Board of Regents of State Colleges hired David Roth as an assistant professor of political science at Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh for a fixed term running from September 1, 1968, to June 30, 1969.1
The formal notice of appointment stated that the employment basis was the academic year.2 It provided that regulations governing tenure followed Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 37.31.3 Roth was informed before he began teaching that he had no tenure rights and would be rehired for the 1969-1970 academic year only if the University chose to retain him.45
Under Wisconsin law a teacher could acquire tenure as a permanent employee only after four years of continuous service.6 The Board of Regents' rules established February 1 as the deadline for written notification of non-retention for nontenured faculty.7 No reason for non-retention need be given and no review or appeal is provided in such case.8
In conformance with these rules the University president notified Roth before February 1, 1969, that he would not be rehired.9 Roth received no statement of reasons and no opportunity to challenge the decision.10
Roth brought this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.11 He alleged that the failure to provide reasons and a hearing violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process.12 He also alleged that the non-renewal decision was actually retaliation for statements critical of the University administration that violated his First Amendment rights.13
The District Court granted summary judgment for Roth on the procedural due process claim.14 The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed.15 The Board of Regents petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted.16
Whether the respondent had a property interest in re-employment for the 1969-1970 academic year that required the University to provide a statement of reasons and a hearing?17
The Fourteenth Amendment's procedural protection of property safeguards the security of interests that a person has already acquired in specific benefits.18 To have a property interest in a benefit, a person must have more than an abstract need or desire for it and more than a unilateral expectation of it.19 Instead, the person must have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.20 Property interests are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.21
No. The terms of the respondent's appointment secured absolutely no interest in re-employment after the contract year expired.22 Under Wisconsin law a nontenured teacher is entitled to nothing beyond his one-year appointment.23 The Board of Regents' rules explicitly stated that no reason for non-retention need be given and no review or appeal is provided.24 The respondent had only an abstract concern in being rehired but no legitimate claim of entitlement sufficient to require the University authorities to provide him with a hearing when they decided not to rehire him.25
The respondent did not have a property interest in re-employment that required the University to provide a statement of reasons and a hearing.26
Related opinions on this issue
Chief Justice Burger concurred in the opinion of the Court.27 The respondent was a new teacher who had been employed for only one year.28 He had no tenure rights.29
The terms of his employment were clear.30 He was informed that he would not be rehired.31 He was given no reasons, and none were required.32
The Constitution does not require a hearing in these circumstances.33 The University was entitled to make its decision without the burdens that a hearing would impose.34
Whether the University's decision not to rehire the respondent infringed any liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?35
Liberty denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.36 A liberty interest may be implicated where a State refuses to re-employ a person under circumstances that seriously damage his standing and associations in the community.37 It may also be implicated where the State imposes a stigma that forecloses his freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities.38
No. The State, in declining to rehire the respondent, did not make any charge against him that might seriously damage his standing and associations in his community.39 It did not base the nonrenewal of his contract on a charge that he had been guilty of dishonesty or immorality.40 There is no suggestion that the respondent's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake.41 The State did not invoke any regulations to bar the respondent from all other public employment in state universities.42
The University's decision did not infringe any liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.43
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Douglas dissented that the opinion of the Court is a major step backward in the field of procedural due process.44 The respondent was a teacher who was not rehired.45 He was given no reasons and no hearing.46
The University acted in secret.47 The Fourteenth Amendment requires that a person be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before he is deprived of a liberty or property interest.48 The respondent had both a liberty and a property interest in his continued employment.49
The decision not to rehire him may have been based on grounds that would seriously damage his standing in the community.50 He was entitled to a hearing to clear his name.51 The Court's distinction between liberty and property is artificial.52
Both are protected by the Due Process Clause.53 The respondent was entitled to due process.54 I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.55
Whether the respondent's First Amendment free speech claim was presented for decision in this case?56
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.57 The District Court stayed proceedings on this issue, and the respondent has yet to prove that the decision not to rehire him was in fact based on his free speech activities.58
No. The respondent alleged that the true reason for the decision was to punish him for statements critical of the University administration, but this allegation is not now before the Court.59 The District Court stayed proceedings on this issue, and the respondent has yet to prove that the decision not to rehire him was in fact based on his free speech activities. The only question presented is whether the respondent had a constitutional right to a statement of reasons and a hearing on the non-rehire decision.60
The respondent's First Amendment free speech claim was not presented for decision in this case.61
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Douglas
Justice Brennan dissented that the respondent was entitled to a statement of reasons and a hearing before the University decided not to rehire him.62 The decision not to rehire him implicated both liberty and property interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.63 The failure to provide any procedural safeguards violated the Constitution.64
The Court's opinion narrows the scope of due process protection in a way that is inconsistent with our prior decisions such as Goldberg v. Kelly, Bell v. Burson, and Wisconsin v. Constantineau.65 I would affirm.66
Justice Marshall dissented that every citizen who applies for a government job is entitled to it unless the government can establish some reason for denying the employment.67 This is the property right that is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and that cannot be denied without due process of law.68 It is also liberty to work, which is the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity secured by the Fourteenth Amendment.69
The government may not reward some citizens and not others without demonstrating that its actions are fair and equitable.70 It is procedural due process that is our fundamental guarantee of fairness, our protection against arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable government action.71 I would follow prior cases and hold that respondent was denied due process when his contract was not renewed and he was not informed of the reasons and given an opportunity to respond.72
Accordingly, I dissent.73