Board of Regents v. Roth,92 S.Ct. 2701, 408 U.S. 564, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)

 

The BOARD OF REGENTS OF STATE COLLEGES et al., Petitioners,

v.

David F. ROTH, etc.

 

Action by assistant professor at state university, who had no tenure rights to continued employment and who was informed that he would not be rehired after first academic year, alleging that decision not to rehire him infringed his Fourteenth Amendment rights.  The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, 310 F.Supp. 972, granted summary judgment for assistant professor on procedural issue, ordering university officials to provide him with reasons and a hearing, and appeal was taken.  The Court of Appeals, 446 F.2d 806, affirmed the partial summary judgment, and certiorari was granted.  The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Stewart, held that where state did not make any charge against assistant professor that might seriously damage his standing and associations in his community and there was no suggestion that state imposed on him a stigma or other disability that foreclosed his freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities, he was not deprived of 'liberty' protected by the Fourteenth Amendment when he simply was not rehired in the job but remained as free as before to seek another.  The Court further held that where terms of appointment of assistant professor secured absolutely no interest in reemployment for the next year and there was no state statute or university rule or policy that secured his interest in reemployment or that created any legitimate claim to it, he did not have a property interest protected by Fourteenth Amendment that was sufficient to require university authorities to give him a hearing when they declined to renew his contract of employment.

 

Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed and case remanded. 

Mr. Justice Douglas filed a dissenting opinion.

Mr. Justice Marshall filed a dissenting opinion.

For concurring opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Burger, see 92 S.Ct. 2717.

For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan in which Mr. Justice Douglas joined, see 92 S.Ct. 2717.

Mr. Justice Powell took no part in decision of case.

 

Syllabus [FN***]

 

Respondent, hired for a fixed term of one academic year to teach at a state university, was informed without explanation that he would not be rehired for the ensuing year.  A statute provided that all state university teachers would be employed initially on probation and that only after four years' continuous service would teachers achieve permanent employment 'during efficiency and good behavior,' with procedural protection against separation. University rules gave a nontenured teacher 'dismissed' before the end of the year some opportunity for review of the 'dismissal,' but provided that no reason need be given for nonretention of a nontenured teacher, and no standards were specified for reemployment.  Respondent brought this action claiming deprivation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, alleging infringement of (1) his free speech right because the true reason for his nonretention was his criticism of the university administration, and (2) his procedural due process right because of the university's failure to advise him of the reason for its decision.  The District Court granted summary judgment for the respondent on the procedural issue.  The Court of Appeals affirmed. Held: The Fourteenth Amendment does not require 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.  Here the nonretention of respondent, absent any charges against him or stigma or disability foreclosing other employment, is not tantamount to a deprivation of 'liberty,' and the terms of respondent's employment accorded him no 'property' interest protected by procedural due process.  The courts below therefore erred in granting summary judgment for the respondent on the procedural due process issue.  Pp. 2705‑‑2710.

 

446 F.2d 806, reversed and remanded.

 

Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.

 

In 1968 the respondent, David Roth, was hired for his first teaching job as assistant professor of political science at Wisconsin State University‑ Oshkosh.  He was hired for a fixed term of one academic year.  The notice of his faculty appointment specified that his employment would begin on September 1, 1968, and would end on June 30, 1969. [FN1]  The respondent completed that term.  But he was informed that he would not be rehired for the next academic year.

 

FN1. The respondent had no contract of employment.  Rather, his formal notice of appointment was the equivalent of an employment contract.         The notice of his appointment provided that: 'David F. Roth is hereby appointed to the faculty of the Wisconsin State University Position number 0262. (Location:) Oshkosh as (Rank:) Assistant Professor of (Department:) Political Science this (Date:) first day of (Month:) September (Year:) 1968.' The notice went on to specify that the respondent's 'appointment basis' was for the 'academic year.'  And it provided that '(r)egulations governing tenure are in accord with Chapter 37.31, Wisconsin Statutes. The employment of any staff member for an academic year shall not be for a term beyond June 30th of the fiscal year in which the appointment is made.'  See n. 2, infra.

 

The respondent had no tenure rights to continued employment. Under Wisconsin statutory law a state university teacher can acquire tenure as a 'permanent' employee only after four years of year‑to‑year employment.  Having acquired tenure, a teacher is entitled to continued employment 'during efficiency and good behavior.'  A relatively new teacher without tenure, however, is under Wisconsin law entitled to nothing beyond his one‑year appointment. [FN2]  There are no statutory or administrative standards defining eligibility for re‑employment.  State law thus clearly leaves the decision whether to rehire a nontenured teacher for another year to the unfettered discretion of university officials.

 

FN2. Wis.Stat. § 37.31(1) (1967), in force at the time, provided in pertinent part that:

'All teachers in any state university shall initially be employed on probation.  The employment shall be permanent, during efficiency and good behavior after 4 years of continuous service in the state university system as a teacher.'

 

The procedural protection afforded a Wisconsin State University teacher before he is separated from the University corresponds to his job security.  As a matter of statutory law, a tenured teacher cannot be 'discharged except for cause upon written charges' and pursuant to certain procedures. [FN3]  A nontenured teacher, similarly, is protected to some extent during his one‑year term. Rules promulgated by the Board of Regents provide that a nontenured teacher 'dismissed' before the end of the year may have some opportunity for review of the 'dismissal.'  But the Rules provide no real protection for a nontenured teacher who simply is not re‑employed for the next year.  He must be informed by February 1 'concerning retention or non‑retention for the ensuing year.'  But 'no reason for non‑retention need be given.  No review or appeal is provided in such case.' [FN4]

 

FN3. Wis.Stat. § 37.31(1) further provided that:

'No teacher who has become permanently employed as herein provided shall be discharged except for cause upon written charges.  Within 30 days of receiving the written charges, such teacher may appeal the discharge by a written notice to the president of the board of regents of state colleges. The board shall cause the charges to be investigated, hear the case and provide such teacher with a written statement as to their decision.'

 

FN4. The Rules, promulgated by the Board of Regents in 1967, provide:

'RULE I‑‑February first is established throughout the State University system as the deadline for written notification of non‑tenured faculty concerning retention or non‑retention for the ensuing year.  The President of each University shall give such notice each year on or before this date.'

'RULE II‑‑During the time a faculty member is on probation, no reason for non‑retention need be given.  No review or appeal is provided in such case.

'RULE III‑‑'Dismissal' as opposed to 'Non‑Retention' means termination of responsibilities during an academic year.  When a non‑tenure faculty member is dismissed he has no right under Wisconsin Statutes to a review of his case or to appeal.  The President may, however, in his discretion, grant a request for a review within the institution, either by a faculty committee            or by the President, or both.  Any such review would be informal in nature and would be advisory only.

'RULE IV‑‑When a non‑tenure faculty member is dismissed he may request a review by or hearing before the Board of Regents.  Each such request will be considered separately and the Board will, in its discretion, grant or deny same in each individual case.'

 

In conformance with these Rules, the President of Wisconsin State University‑Oshkosh informed the respondent before February 1, 1969, that he would not be rehired for the 1969‑‑1970 academic year.  He gave the respondent no reason for the decision and no opportunity to challenge it at any sort of hearing.

 

The respondent then brought this action in Federal District Court alleging that the decision not to rehire him for the next year infringed his Fourteenth Amendment rights.  He attacked the decision both in substance and procedure. First, he alleged that the true reason for the decision was to punish him for certain statements critical of the University administration, and that it therefore violated his right to freedom of speech. [FN5] Second, he alleged that the failure of University officials to give him notice of any reason for nonretention and an opportunity for a hearing violated his right to procedural due process of law.

 

FN5. While the respondent alleged that he was not rehired because of his exercise of free speech, the petitioners insisted that the non‑retention decision was based on other, constitutionally valid grounds.  The District Court came to no conclusion whatever regarding the true reason for the University President's decision. 'In the present case,' it stated, 'it appears that a determination as to the actual bases of (the) decision must await amplification of the facts at trial. . . .  Summary judgment is inappropriate.' 310 F.Supp. 972, 982.

 

The District Court granted summary judgment for the respondent on the procedural issue, ordering the University officials to provide him with reasons and a hearing. 310 F.Supp. 972.  The Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, affirmed this partial summary judgment. 446 F.2d 806.  We granted certiorari. 404 U.S. 909, 92 S.Ct. 227, 30 L.Ed.2d 181.  The only question presented to us at this stage in the case is whether the respondent had a constitutional right to a statement of reasons and a hearing on the University's decision not to rehire him for another year. [FN6]  We hold that he did not.

 

FN6. The courts that have had to decide whether a nontenured public    employee has a right to a statement of reasons or a hearing upon nonrenewal of his contract have come to varying conclusions.  Some have held that neither procedural safeguard is required. E.g., Orr v. Trinter, 444 F.2d 128 (CA6); Jones v. Hopper, 410 F.2d 1323 (CA10); Freeman v. Gould Special School District, 405 F.2d 1153 (CA8).  At least one court has held that there is a right to a statement of reasons but not a hearing. Drown v. Portsmouth School District, 435 F.2d 1182 (CA1).  And another has held that both requirements depend on whether the employee has an 'expectancy' of continued employment.  Ferguson v. Thomas, 430 F.2d 852, 856 (CA5).

 

I

 

The requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty and property.  When protected interests are implicated, the right to some kind of prior hearing is paramount. [FN7]  But the range of interests protected by procedural due process is not infinite.'

 

FN7. Before a person is deprived of a protected interest, he must be afforded opportunity for some kind of a hearing, 'except for extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that            justifies postponing the hearing until after the event.'  Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379, 91 S.Ct. 780, 786, 28 L.Ed.2d 113.  'While '(m)any controversies have raged about . . . the Due Process Clause,' . . . it is fundamental that except in emergency situations (and this is not one) due process requires that when a State seeks to terminate (a protected) interest . . ., it must afford 'notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case' before the termination becomes effective.'  Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 542, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 1591, 29 L.Ed.2d 90. For the rare and extraordinary situations in which we have held that deprivation of a protected interest need not be preceded by opportunity for some kind of hearing, see, e.g., Central Union Trust Co. v. Garvan, 254 U.S. 554, 566, 41 S.Ct. 214, 215, 65 L.Ed. 403; Phillips v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 283 U.S. 589, 597, 51 S.Ct. 608, 611, 75 L.Ed. 1289; Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., 339 U.S. 594, 70 S.Ct. 870, 94 L.Ed. 1088.

 

The District Court decided that procedural due process guarantees apply in this case by assessing and balancing the weights of the particular interests involved.  It concluded that the respondent's interest in re‑employment at Wisconsin State University‑Oshkosh outweighed the University's interest in denying him re‑employment summarily. 310 F.Supp., at 977‑‑979.  Undeniably, the respondent's re‑employment prospects were of major concern to him‑‑concern that we surely cannot say was insignificant.  And a weighing process has long been a part of any determination of the form of hearing required in particular situations by procedural due process. [FN8] But, to determine whether due process requirements apply in the first place, we must look not to the 'weight' but to the nature of the interest at stake.  See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, at 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, at 2600, 33 L.Ed.2d 484.  We must look to see if the interest is within the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty and property.

 

FN8. 'The formality and procedural requisites for the hearing can vary, depending upon the importance of the interests involved and the nature of the subsequent proceedings.'  Boddie v. Connecticut, supra, 401 U.S., at 378, 91 S.Ct., at 786.  See, e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 263, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1018, 25 L.Ed.2d 287; Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 80 S.Ct. 1502, 4 L.Ed.2d 1307.  The constitutional requirement of opportunity for some form of hearing before deprivation of a protected interest, of course, does not depend upon such a narrow balancing process.  See n. 7, supra.

 

'Liberty' and 'property' are broad and majestic terms.  They are among the '(g)reat (constitutional) concepts . . . purposely left to gather meaning from experience. . . . (T)hey relate to the whole domain of social and economic fact, and the statesmen who founded this Nation knew too well that only a stagnant society remains unchanged.'  National Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582, 646, 69 S.Ct. 1173, 1195, 93 L.Ed. 1556 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).  For that reason, the Court has fully and finally rejected the wooden distinction between 'rights' and 'privileges' that once seemed to govern the applicability of procedural due process rights. [FN9]  The Court has also made clear that the property interests protected by procedural due process extend well beyond actual ownership of real estate, chattels, or money. [FN10]  By the same token, the Court has required due process protection for deprivations of liberty beyond the sort of formal constraints imposed by the criminal process. [FN11]

 

FN9. In a leading case decided many years ago, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that public employment in general was a 'privilege,' not a 'right,' and that procedural due process guarantees therefore were inapplicable.  Bailey v. Richardson, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 248, 182 F.2d 46, aff'd by an equally divided Court, 341 U.S. 918, 71 S.Ct. 669, 95 L.Ed. 1352.  The basis of this holding has been thoroughly undermined in the ensuing years.  For, as Mr. Justice Blackmun wrote for      the Court only last year, 'this Court now has rejected the concept that constitutional rights turn upon whether a governmental benefit is characterized as a 'right' or as a 'privilege." Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 374, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 1853, 29 L.Ed.2d 534.  See, e.g., Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, 408 U.S., at 482, 92 S.Ct., at 2600; Bell v. Burson, supra, 402 U.S., at 539, 91 S.Ct., at 1589; Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, 397 U.S., at 262, 90 S.Ct., at 1017; Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 627 n. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 1329, 22 L.Ed.2d 600; Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1734, 20 L.Ed.2d 811; Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 404, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 1794, 10 L.Ed.2d 965.

 

FN10. See, e.g., Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208, 91 S.Ct. 1772, 1773, 29 L.Ed.2d 418; Bell v. Burson, supra; Goldberg v. Kelly, supra.

 

FN11. 'Although the Court has not assumed to define 'liberty' (in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause) with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint.' Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499, 74 S.Ct. 693, 694, 98 L.Ed. 884.  See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551.

 

Yet, while the Court has eschewed rigid or formalistic limitations on the protection of procedural due process, it has at the same time observed certain boundaries.  For the words 'liberty' and 'property' in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment must be given some meaning.

 

II

 

'While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty . . . guaranteed (by the Fourteenth Amendment), the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized . . . as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.'  Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042.  In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of 'liberty' must be broad indeed.  See, e.g., Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499‑‑500, 74 S.Ct. 693, 694, 98 L.Ed. 884; Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551.

 

There might be cases in which a State refused to re‑employ a person under such circumstances that interests in liberty would be implicated.  But this is not such a case.

 

The State, in declining to rehire the respondent, did not make any charge against him that might seriously damage his standing and associations in his community.  It did not base the nonrenewal of his contract on a charge, for example, that he had been guilty of dishonesty, or immorality.  Had it done so, this would be a different case.  For '(w)here a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential.' Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437, 91 S.Ct. 507, 510, 27 L.Ed.2d 515; Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 191, 73 S.Ct. 215, 219, 97 L.Ed. 216; Joint Anti‑ Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 71 S.Ct. 624, 95 L.Ed. 817; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 316‑‑317, 66 S.Ct. 1073, 1079, 90 L.Ed. 1252; Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331, 352, 75 S.Ct. 790, 801, 99 L.Ed. 1129 (Douglas, J., concurring).  See Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. MeElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 898, 81 S.Ct. 1743, 1750, 6 L.Ed.2d 1230.  In such a case, due process would accord an opportunity to refute the charge before University officials. [FN12]  In the present case, however, there is no suggestion whatever that the respondent's 'good name, reputation, honor, or integrity' is at stake.

 

FN12. The purpose of such notice and hearing is to provide the person an opportunity to clear his name.  Once a person has cleared his name at a hearing, his employer, of course, may remain free to deny him future employment for other reasons.

 

Similarly, there is no suggestion that the State, in declining to re‑employ the respondent, imposed on him a stigma or other disability that foreclosed his freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities.  The State, for example, did not invoke any regulations to bar the respondent from all other public employment in state universities.  Had it done so, this, again, would be a different case.  For '(t)o be deprived not only of present government employment but of future opportunity for it certainly is no small injury . . ..' Joint Anti‑Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, supra, 341 U.S. at 185, 71 S.Ct. at 655 (Jackson, J., concurring).  See Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 41, 36 S.Ct. 7, 10, 60 L.Ed. 131.  The Court has held, for example, that a State, in regulating eligibility for a type of professional employment, cannot foreclose a range of opportunities 'in a manner . . . that contravene(s) . . .  Due Process,' Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238, 77 S.Ct. 752, 756, 1 L.Ed.2d 796, and, specifically, in a manner that denies the right to a full prior hearing.  Willner v. Committee on Character, 373 U.S. 96, 103, 83 S.Ct. 1175, 1180, 10 L.Ed.2d 224.  See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, supra, 367 U.S. at 898, 81 S.Ct. at 1750.  In the present case, however, this principle does not come into play. [FN13]

 

FN13. The District Court made an assumption 'that non‑retention by one university or college creates concrete and practical difficulties for a professor in his subsequent academic career.' 310 F.Supp., at 979.  And the Court of Appeals based its affirmance of the summary judgment largely on the premise that 'the substantial adverse effect non‑retention is likely to have upon the career interests of an individual professor' amounts to a limitation on future employment opportunities sufficient invoke procedural due process guarantees. 446 F.2d, at 809.  But even assuming, arguendo, that such a 'substantial adverse effect' under these circumstances would constitute a state‑imposed restriction on liberty, the record contains no support for these assumptions.  There is no suggestion of how nonretention might affect the respondent's future employment prospects.  Mere proof, for example, that his record of nonretention in one job, taken alone, might make him somewhat less attractive to some other employers would hardly establish the kind of foreclosure of opportunities amounting to a deprivation of 'liberty.'  Cf. Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 77 S.Ct. 752, 1 L.Ed.2d 796.

 

To be sure, the respondent has alleged that the nonrenewal of his contract was based on his exercise of his right to freedom of speech.  But this allegation is not now before us.  The District Court stayed proceedings on this issue, and the respondent has yet to prove that the decision not to rehire him was, in fact, based on his free speech activities. [FN14]

 

FN14. See n. 5, supra. The Court of Appeals, nonetheless, argued that opportunity for a hearing and a statement of reasons were required here 'as a prophylactic against non‑retention decisions improperly motivated by exercise of protected rights.' 446 F.2d, at 810 (emphasis supplied). While the Court of Appeals recognized the lack of a finding that the respondent's nonretention was based on exercise of the right of free speech, it felt that the respondent's interest in liberty was sufficiently implicated here because the decision not to rehire him was made 'with a background of controversy and unwelcome expressions of opinion.' Ibid.

When a State would directly impinge upon interests in free speech or free press, this Court has on occasion held that opportunity for a fair adversary hearing must precede the action, whether or not the speech or press interest is clearly protected under substantive First Amendment standards.  Thus, we have required fair notice and opportunity for an adversary hearing before an injunction is issued against the holding of rallies and public meetings.  Carroll v. President and Com'rs of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 89 S.Ct. 347, 21 L.Ed.2d 325.  Similarly, we have indicated the necessity of procedural safeguards before a State makes a large‑scale seizure of a person's allegedly obscene books, magazines, and so forth.  A Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205, 84 S.Ct. 1723, 12 L.Ed.2d 809; Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717, 81 S.Ct. 1708, 6 L.Ed.2d 1127.  See Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649; Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 83 S.Ct. 631, 9 L.Ed.2d 584.  See generally Monaghan, First Amendment 'Due Process', 83 Harv.L.Rev. 518.

In the respondent's case, however, the State has not directly impinged upon interests in free speech or free press in any way comparable to a seizure of books or an injunction against meetings. Whatever may be a teacher's rights of free speech, the interest in holding a teaching job at a state university, simpliciter, is not itself a free speech interest.

 

Hence, on the record before us, all that clearly appears is that the respondent was not rehired for one year at one university.  It stretches the concept too far to suggest that a person is deprived of 'liberty' when he simply is not rehired in one job but remains as free as before to seek another.  Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, supra, 367 U.S. at 895‑‑896, 81 S.Ct. at 1748‑‑1749, 6 L.Ed.2d 1230.

 

III

 

The Fourteenth Amendment's procedural protection of property is a safeguard of the security of interests that a person has already acquired in specific benefits.  These interests‑‑property interests‑‑may take many forms.

 

Thus, the Court has held that a person receiving welfare benefits under statutory and administrative standards defining eligibility for them has an interest in continued receipt of those benefits that is safeguarded by procedural due process.  Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287. [FN15]  See Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 611, 80 S.Ct. 1367, 1373, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435.  Similarly, in the area of public employment, the Court has held that a public college professor dismissed from an office held under tenure provisions, Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U.S. 551, 76 S.Ct. 637, 100 L.Ed. 692, and college professors and staff members dismissed during the terms of their contracts, Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 73 S.Ct. 215, 97 L.Ed. 216, have interests in continued employment that are safeguarded by due process.  Only last year, the Court held that this principle 'proscribing summary dismissal from public employment without hearing or inquiry required by due process' also applied to a teacher recently hired without tenure or a formal contract, but nonetheless with a clearly implied promise of continued employment. Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208, 91 S.Ct. 1772, 1773, 29 L.Ed.2d 418.

 

FN15. Goldsmith v. United States Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117, 46 S.Ct. 215, 70 L.Ed. 494, is a related case.  There, the petitioner was a lawyer who had been refused admission to practice before the Board of Tax Appeals.  The Board had 'published rules for admission of persons entitled to practice before it, by which attorneys at law admitted to courts of the United States and the states, and the District of Columbia, as well as certified public accountants duly qualified under the law of any state or the District are made eligible. . . .  The rules further provide that the Board may in its discretion deny admission to any applicant, or suspend or disbar any person after admission.' Id., at 119, 46 S.Ct., at 216.  The Board denied admission to the petitioner under its discretionary power, without a prior hearing and a statement of the reasons for the denial. Although this Court disposed of the case on other grounds, it stated, in an opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Taft, that the existence of the Board's eligibility rules gave the petitioner an interest and claim to practice before the Board to which procedural due process requirements applied.  It said that the Board's discretionary power 'must be construed to mean the exercise of a discretion to be exercised after fair investigation, with such a notice, hearing and opportunity to answer for the applicant as would           constitute due process.' Id., at 123, 46 S.Ct., at 217.

 

Certain attributes of 'property' interests protected by procedural due process emerge from these decisions.  To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it.  He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.  He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.  It is a purpose of the ancient institution of property to protect those claims upon which people rely in their daily lives, reliance that must not be arbitrarily undermined.  It is a purpose of the constitutional right to a hearing to provide an opportunity for a person to vendicate those claims.

 

Property interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution.  Rather they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law‑‑rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits. Thus, the welfare recipients in Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, had a claim of entitlement to welfare payments that was grounded in the statute defining eligibility for them.  The recipients had not yet shown that they were, in fact, within the statutory terms of eligibility.  But we held that they had a right to a hearing at which they might attempt to do so.

 

Just as the welfare recipients' 'property' interest in welfare payments was created and defined by statutory terms, so the respondent's 'property' interest in employment at Wisconsin State University‑Oshkosh was created and defined by the terms of his appointment.  Those terms secured his interest in employment up to June 30, 1969.  But the important fact in this case is that they specifically provided that the respondent's employment was to terminate on June 30.  They did not provide for contract renewal absent 'sufficient cause.'  Indeed, they made no provision for renewal whatsoever.

 

Thus, the terms of the respondent's appointment secured absolutely no interest in re‑employment for the next year.  They supported absolutely no possible claim of entitlement to re‑employment.  Nor, significantly, was there any state statute or University rule or policy that secured his interest in re‑employment or that created any legitimate claim to it. [FN16] In these circumstances, the respondent surely had an abstract concern in being rehired, but he did not have a property interest sufficient to require the University authorities to give him a hearing when they declined to renew his contract of employment.

 

FN16. To be sure, the respondent does suggest that most teachers hired on a year‑to‑year basis by Wisconsin State University‑Oshkosh are, in fact, rehired.  But the District Court has not found that there is anything approaching a 'common law' of re‑employment, see Perry v. Sindermann,   408 U.S. 593, at 602, 92 S.Ct. 2694, at 2705, 33 L.Ed.2d 570, so strong as to require University officials to give the respondent a statement of reasons and a hearing on their decision not to rehire him.

 

IV

 

Our analysis of the respondent's constitutional rights in this case in no way indicates a view that an opportunity for a hearing or a statement of reasons for nonretention would, or would not, be appropriate or wise in public colleges and universities. [FN17]  For it is a written Constitution that we apply.  Our role is confined to interpretation of that Constitution.

 

FN17. See, e.g., Report of Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments, 56 AAUP Bulletin No. 1, p. 21 (Spring 1970).

 

We must conclude that the summary judgment for the respondent should not have been granted, since the respondent has not shown that he was deprived of liberty or property protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  The judgment of the Court of Appeals, accordingly, is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  It is so ordered. Reversed and remanded.