Procedural History
408 U.S. 564 (1972)
The Supreme Court addressed whether the nonrenewal of a public university professor's contract constituted a deprivation of property without due process, establishing important precedents regarding public employee rights.
Source: 408 U.S. 564 (1972)
Action: Roth's contract was not renewed by the Board of Regents after a one-year appointment.
Outcome: Roth filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of his right to due process.
Significance: This initiated the examination of procedural due process rights for non-tenured faculty.
Action: The court ruled that Roth did not have a property right to continued employment.
Outcome: Affirmed the Board's actions, denying Roth's claim for procedural protections.
Significance: This decision prompted Roth to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Action: The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
Outcome: The Court proceeded to hear arguments regarding due process rights.
Significance: This marked a critical moment for evaluating constitutional protections for public employees.
Action: The Supreme Court issued its ruling.
Outcome: The Court held that Roth had no property interest in his position and was not entitled to a hearing.
Significance: Set a precedent for defining the limits of due process in the context of public employment.
At the time the United States Supreme Court heard the case, Roth had lost in the lower courts, which concluded that he lacked a property interest in his employment. The question before the Court was whether the nonrenewal of Roth's contract violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
The standard of review applied was a de novo review regarding constitutional questions, particularly concerning statutory interpretation and due process rights.
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, concluding that public employees do not have a constitutionally protected property interest in their employment unless established by law, regulation, or policy.