Board of Regents v. Roth

408 U.S. 564 (1972)

Quick Summary

David Roth (plaintiff) was an assistant professor at Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh with a one-year contract. Upon completion, he was not rehired and received no explanation or hearing, which he claimed violated his due process rights. The Board of Regents (defendant) disagreed.

The dispute centered on whether Roth’s Fourteenth Amendment rights were breached by not providing reasons or a hearing for non-renewal. The Supreme Court concluded that Roth lacked a protected property or liberty interest, thus no due process was required.

Facts of the Case

David Roth (plaintiff), began his academic career as an assistant professor at Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh, where he was employed for a fixed term of one academic year. Upon the conclusion of this term, Roth was informed that the university would not extend his contract into the following academic year.

The President of the University provided no reasons for this decision nor did he offer Roth a chance to contest it through a hearing. In Wisconsin, state-university employees could obtain tenure after four years, securing employment rights. However, Roth, lacking tenure, had no legal claim to continued employment beyond his initial term.

Roth initiated a lawsuit against the Board of Regents of Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh (defendant), claiming that his right to procedural due process was violated since he was not given a rationale for the non-renewal of his contract or an opportunity for a hearing. The case ascended through the court system, culminating in a Supreme Court review to address whether Roth’s Fourteenth Amendment rights had been infringed upon by the university’s actions.

Procedural Posture and History

  1. Roth was hired for a one-year term without tenure and was not rehired after this period ended.
  2. Roth filed a lawsuit claiming violation of procedural due process rights.
  3. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Roth on procedural due process grounds.
  4. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision.
  5. The case was brought before the United States Supreme Court on certiorari.

I.R.A.C. Format


Whether the university’s decision not to renew David Roth’s contract without providing a reason or an opportunity for a hearing violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process.

Rule of Law

Procedural due process requirements apply only to deprivations of interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s liberty and property concepts. To possess a property interest in employment sufficient to trigger due process protections, an individual must have a legitimate claim of entitlement, not just an abstract need or desire.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court determined that Roth’s interest in re-employment did not amount to a ‘liberty’ or ‘property’ interest protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that since Roth was not subjected to any charges that might harm his reputation or standing in the community, nor was he prohibited from other employment opportunities, his case did not involve an infringement upon ‘liberty’.

Furthermore, because Roth’s contract clearly stated an end date without any terms for guaranteed renewal, he had no ‘property’ interest in continued employment at the university.

As such, Roth’s situation did not meet the criteria for a protected property interest that would necessitate procedural due process protections such as a hearing or statement of reasons for non-renewal. The Court underscored that property interests are defined by existing rules or understandings stemming from independent sources like state laws or contractual terms. In this case, neither statutory law nor university policies provided him with an entitlement to re-employment.


The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, ruling that David Roth did not have a constitutional right to a statement of reasons and a hearing on the university’s decision not to rehire him for another year because he did not have a protected property or liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Key Takeaways

  1. The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process protections only apply to deprivations of liberty or property interests as defined by law.
  2. A non-tenured professor without a contract provision for renewal does not have a property interest in continued employment.
  3. The absence of allegations damaging one’s reputation or restricting future employment opportunities means no liberty interest is implicated.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What constitutes a protected property interest requiring due process before termination of employment?

A protected property interest arises when an individual has more than a unilateral expectation of continued employment, but rather a legitimate claim to it, often defined by law, contract, or mutually binding understandings. Without a clear entitlement, no property interest exists.

  • For example: A teacher with a multi-year contract has a property interest in their job, necessitating due process for termination, as opposed to an at-will employee who does not.

In what scenarios does a person's liberty interest implicate due process rights?

A person’s liberty interest is implicated when government action negatively affects their good name, reputation, honor, or integrity. Due process rights are triggered if these actions restrain the individual’s freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities.

  • For example: If a public employee is terminated with allegations of misconduct that are made public, thus damaging their reputation and hindering future job prospects, due process protections would be warranted.

How do state laws influence the establishment of property interests in employment?

State laws play a crucial role by defining the contours and conditions under which public or private employment is considered secure or protected. These laws set the stage for what is recognized as a property interest eligible for procedural due process if deprived.

  • For example: A state statute may require that public school teachers can only be dismissed for cause after a probationary period, creating a legislatively-backed property interest in their continued employment.


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Constitutional Law