Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
ArgueDate=January 18
ArgueYear=1972
DecideDate=June 29
DecideYear=1972
FullName=Board of Regents of State Colleges, et al. v. Roth
USVol=408
USPage=564
Citation=92 S. Ct. 2701; 33 L. Ed. 2d 548; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 131; 1 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 23
Prior=
Subsequent=
Holding=
SCOTUS=1972-1975
Majority=Stewart
JoinMajority=Burger, White, Blackmun, Rehnquist
Concurrence=Burger
Dissent=Douglas
Dissent2=Brennan
JoinDissent2=Douglas
Dissent3=Marshall
NotParticipating=Powell
LawsApplied=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 were 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."

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 408

External links

* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=408&page=564 Full-text opinion from Findlaw.com]