1. Board of Regents v. Roth, (1972)
2. Facts: Roth was a non-tenured college professor hired to teach for one year at a state university. During that year he made comments against the university officials. He was not rehired for the next year, and no reason was given. State law provided that no reason need be given. Most teachers would be rehired.
3. Procedural Posture: Roth brought an action for violation of his first amendment rights (being fired for making criticisms) and for a violation of his 14th amendment procedural due process guarantee (for being fired from a position of status without a hearing or a reason). The District Court granted summary judgment for Roth on the procedural due process claim, and the court of appeals affirmed.
4. Issue: Whether Roth had a constitutional right to a statement of reasons and a hearing.
5. Holding: No.
6. Majority Reasoning: The 14th amendment protections apply only to “liberty” and “property.” Although Roth’s employment was important, it does not fall under the nature of “liberty” or “property.” The failure to rehire Roth was only one employment prospect for one year, and it did not damage his reputation (or it may have been found to be protected “liberty” under Wisconsin v. Constantineau). He was still free to seek other work. Roth has not shown that his failure to be rehired was based on his critcisms. It is also not a property interest because Roth, by his employment contract, does not have any legitimate entitlement to the employment.
7. Dissent Reasoning: [Marshall] There are cases holding that the state governments are restrained by the constitution from acting arbitrarily with respect to government employment. Every citizen who applies for a government job is entitled to it unless the government can establish a reason for denying the employment. Otherwise, the people’s faith in the government is undermined by apparently arbitrary decisions.
8. Notes: Contrast Perry v. Sindermann, in which the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a full trial court hearing on the first amendment issue (government can not deny rehire for criticism). Also, even if the teacher did not have formal tenure, if there was an unwritten practice among the administration to rehire, there still could be a deprivation of property. In Paul v. Davis, the court [Rehnquist] held that mere defamation is not a violation of “liberty” (reputation is not a liberty interest per se), unless it is accompanied by some more tangible interest such as employment. Thus, a person labeled a “shoplifter” by local police did not have any constitutional protection from the defamation, only a remedy in tort law. However, in Vitek v. Jones, a state prisoner was found to have a liberty interest in not being involuntarily transferred to a mental institution if his condition could be adequately treated in the prison. An “objective expectation” based on the state law and normal official practice was created, and it could not be violated without a hearing. The liberty interest can arise not only from the 14th amendment due process clause, but also from state law itself. In determining what sort of a hearing is required to satisfy due process, the court [Powell] held in Mathews v. Eldridge, that “due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” The balancing approach was taken which considered 1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action, 2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest throught the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards, and 3) the government’s interest including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail.
