## Facts

- David Roth was hired as a nontenured assistant professor at Wisconsin State University–Oshkosh under a fixed one-academic-year contract (1968–1969).
- The contract provided no tenure and no promise of renewal; under state law, tenure arose only after four consecutive years of service.
- University rules required certain procedures only for dismissal during the contract term, not for a decision not to renew a one-year appointment.
- At the end of the year, the university president notified Roth that his contract would not be renewed; no reasons were given and no hearing was provided.
- Roth sued, alleging (1) nonrenewal was retaliation for his criticism of the administration (First Amendment), and (2) failure to provide reasons and a hearing violated procedural due process (Fourteenth Amendment).
- The district court granted summary judgment for Roth on procedural due process; the court of appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court reversed.

## Issues

1. Whether nonrenewal of a nontenured one-year state university contract, without reasons or a hearing, deprived the employee of a Fourteenth Amendment “liberty” interest.
2. Whether nonrenewal deprived the employee of a Fourteenth Amendment “property” interest in continued employment, triggering procedural due process protections.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- Due process protections apply only when the State deprives a person of interests within the Fourteenth Amendment’s “liberty” or “property.”
- Roth’s nonrenewal did not implicate a liberty interest because the State did not publicly impose a stigma or other disability that foreclosed future employment opportunities.
- Roth had no property interest in reemployment beyond the one-year term because neither state law, the contract, nor university rules created an entitlement to renewal.
- Because no protected liberty or property interest was shown, the university was not constitutionally required to provide reasons or a hearing for the nonrenewal.
- The Court did not decide Roth’s separate First Amendment retaliation claim.

## Legal Principles

- Procedural due process is required only upon deprivation of a protected “liberty” or “property” interest.
- A liberty interest may be implicated when the State, in connection with adverse action, officially imposes a stigma (such as charges of dishonesty or immorality) that seriously damages reputation or forecloses future employment.
- A property interest is not created by an abstract desire or unilateral expectation; it exists only where independent sources (state law, contract terms, or rules and mutually explicit understandings) create a legitimate claim of entitlement.
- An at-will or fixed-term public employee ordinarily lacks a property interest in continued employment absent a tenure-like entitlement created by law, contract, or established rules.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a nontenured professor employed under a one-year contract was not entitled to reasons or a hearing upon nonrenewal because he demonstrated neither a liberty interest affected by governmental stigma nor a property interest amounting to an entitlement to continued employment.


Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)