Board of Regents of State Colleges et al. v. Roth
In a case over a nontenured state university teacher not being rehired without a hearing, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not require a hearing before nonrenewal unless the teacher showed a deprivation of a liberty or property interest.· AI-written
408 U.S. 564 · No. 71-162 · 1971 term · Burger Court
Decided Jun 29, 1972 · argued Jan 18, 1972
Due process · Due process: hearing, government employees
Majority opinion: Potter Stewart
The voteMajorityDissent
5–35 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Reversed and remanded. Board of Regents of State Colleges et al. won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Board of Regents of State Colleges et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
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-Oshkosh.
David Roth was hired as a first year assistant professor of political science in 1968 for a fixed term of one year, with a possibility of extension on mutual consent of the parties. In accordance with procedural rules set by the Board of Regents, the president of the University informed Roth he would not be rehired for the next academic year, giving him no reason for the decision and no opportunity to challenge it in any sort of hearing. The Board's employment rules provided opportunity for review of teachers "dismissed" before the end of the employment term, but did not extend these protections to teachers whose contracts were simply not renewed.
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. He said the decision not to rehire him infringed 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 that "every citizen who applies for a government job is entitled to it unless the government can establish some reason for denying the employment." He held government to higher scrutiny than private employers and said that government employees deserve "fair and adequate information" at their terminations in order to protect against arbitrary behavior.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1971 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Potter StewartWrote the majority opinion
Warren BurgerWrote a concurrence
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
William DouglasWrote a dissent
William BrennanWrote a dissent
Thurgood MarshallWrote a dissent
Did not take part: Lewis Powell.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Board of Regents of State Colleges et al.State college or university (Wisconsin)
- Respondent
- RothGovernmental employee or job applicant (Wisconsin)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 29, 1972DecidedDecided · Decided 5–3: reversed and remanded. Board of Regents of State Colleges et al. won.
- Jan 18, 1972ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit: affirmed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
10 other argued cases since 1946 on due process: hearing, government employees, newest first.
- Janice R. Lachance, Acting Director, Office of Personnel Management v. Lester E. Erickson, Jr., et al.522 U.S. 262Jan 21, 1998 · 522 U.S. 262Due process9–0Unanimous band
- James E. Gilbert, President, East Stroudsburg University, et al. v. Richard Homar520 U.S. 924Jun 9, 1997 · 520 U.S. 924Due process9–0Unanimous band
- National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Jerry Tarkanian488 U.S. 179Dec 12, 1988 · 488 U.S. 179Due process5–45–4 band
- Cornelius, Acting Director, Office of Personnel Management v. Nutt et al.472 U.S. 648Jun 24, 1985 · 472 U.S. 648Due process6–27–2 band
- Codd, Police Commissioner, City of New York, et al. v. Velger429 U.S. 624Feb 22, 1977 · 429 U.S. 624Due process5–45–4 band
- Bishop v. Wood et al.426 U.S. 341Jun 10, 1976 · 426 U.S. 341Due process5–45–4 band
- Arnett, Director, Office of Economic Opportunity, et al. v. Kennedy et al.416 U.S. 134Apr 16, 1974 · 416 U.S. 134Due process5–45–4 band
- Christian et al. v. New York State Department of Labor, Division of Employment, et al.414 U.S. 614Jan 21, 1974 · 414 U.S. 614Due process9–0Unanimous band
- Perry et al. v. Sindermann408 U.S. 593Jun 29, 1972 · 408 U.S. 593Due process5–36–3 band
- Williams v. Zuckert, Secretary of the Air Force, et al.371 U.S. 531Jan 14, 1963 · 371 U.S. 531Due process7–27–2 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.