408 U.S. 564 (1972)
Board of Regents v. Roth is a landmark case in constitutional law that addresses the issue of property interests in employment, particularly in the context of public employment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Did David Roth have a property interest in his employment that entitled him to due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment?
The Supreme Court ruled that a property interest in employment is not created by the Constitution but rather by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source, such as state law or policies. To establish a property interest, an individual must demonstrate a legitimate claim of entitlement to the employment, which is typically derived from contractual agreements or established practices.
The Supreme Court held that David Roth did not have a property interest in his employment that entitled him to due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that Roth's one-year contract did not create an expectation of continued employment, and therefore, he was not entitled to a hearing or explanation for his non-reappointment. The decision affirmed the lower court's ruling that due process protections apply only when a legitimate claim of entitlement exists.
Board of Regents v. Roth is a foundational case in employment law and constitutional law, particularly regarding the rights of public employees. It established critical parameters for understanding property interests in employment, influencing how courts evaluate claims of entitlement in similar cases. The ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving due process and employment rights, shaping the legal landscape for public sector employment.