408 U.S. 593 (1972)
Robert Sindermann taught in the state college system of Texas from 1959 to 1969.1 He spent two years at the University of Texas and four years at San Antonio Junior College.2 In 1965 he joined Odessa Junior College as a professor of Government and Social Science.3 He worked there under four successive one-year contracts and served for a time as cochairman of his department.4
During the 1968-1969 academic year, Sindermann was elected president of the Texas Junior College Teachers Association.5 He left his teaching duties on several occasions to testify before committees of the Texas Legislature.6 Sindermann became involved in public disagreements with the policies of the college’s Board of Regents.7 He aligned himself with advocates for elevating the college to four-year status, which the Regents opposed.8 A newspaper advertisement highly critical of the Regents appeared over his name.9
In May 1969 Sindermann's one-year employment contract terminated.10 The Board of Regents voted not to offer him a new contract.11 The Regents issued a press release setting forth allegations of the respondent’s insubordination.12 They provided him no official statement of the reasons for the nonrenewal.13 They allowed him no opportunity for a hearing to challenge the basis of the nonrenewal.14
Sindermann brought an action in Federal District Court against the members of the Board of Regents and the president of the college.15 He alleged that the decision not to rehire him was based on his public criticism of the administration and infringed his right to freedom of speech.16 He also alleged that the failure to provide an opportunity for a hearing violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of procedural due process.17 The petitioners denied that their decision was retaliatory and argued they had no obligation to provide a hearing.18 On the basis of the pleadings and three brief affidavits filed by Sindermann, the District Court granted summary judgment for the petitioners.19
The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the District Court.20 It held that the nonrenewal would violate the Fourteenth Amendment if based on protected free speech and remanded for a hearing on that issue.21 The court also held that the failure to allow a hearing would violate due process if Sindermann could show an expectancy of re-employment and ordered that issue aired on remand.22 The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari and considered the case along with Board of Regents v. Roth.23
Whether the respondent’s lack of a contractual or tenure right to re-employment defeats his claim that the nonrenewal of his contract violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments?24
Even though a person has no right to a valuable governmental benefit and the government may deny the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely, including infringement of constitutionally protected interests such as freedom of speech.25
No. Sindermann held his position at Odessa Junior College under four successive one-year contracts without formal tenure from 1965 through 1969, yet this absence of contractual security does not defeat his claim.26 The Board of Regents voted not to renew his contract after he testified before legislative committees as president of the Texas Junior College Teachers Association. A newspaper advertisement critical of the Regents appeared over his name. Government may not deny re-employment on a basis that penalizes protected speech, as the Court has held in cases involving public school teachers.27
The lack of a contractual or tenure right to re-employment does not defeat the free speech claim.28
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Douglas
Justice Marshall agreed with Part I of the Court’s opinion that Sindermann presented a bona fide First Amendment claim requiring full consideration by the District Court on remand.29 He joined the majority view that the free speech allegation must proceed to factual resolution rather than being cut off by summary judgment.30 Marshall emphasized that the teacher’s public criticism of college policies raised a triable constitutional issue that could not be resolved on bare pleadings alone.31
Whether the respondent’s lack of formal contractual or tenure security in continued employment defeats his claim that the failure to provide an opportunity for a hearing violated the constitutional guarantee of procedural due process?34
A property interest in continued employment may be protected by procedural due process.35 Such interests arise from rules or mutually explicit understandings that support a legitimate claim of entitlement.36 This includes de facto tenure policies fostered by the institution even without a formal written contract.37
No. Although Sindermann lacked formal tenure and worked under one-year contracts that had expired, his allegations raised a genuine issue of a protected property interest.38 He pointed to the college Faculty Guide stating that faculty members should feel they have permanent tenure as long as teaching services are satisfactory and they display a cooperative attitude.39 Coordinating Board guidelines provided some form of job tenure after seven years of service in the state system.40 These understandings, if proven, would entitle him to a statement of reasons and a hearing before nonrenewal.41
The lack of formal contractual or tenure security does not defeat the procedural due process claim if a de facto property interest can be established.42
Related opinions on this issue
Chief Justice Burger concurred to underscore that the relationship between a state institution and its teachers is essentially a matter of state law.43 He emphasized that whether a teacher has a right to a hearing turns on whether state law, arising from either an express or implied contract, creates an entitlement.44 Federal courts should abstain when relevant state contract law is unclear and leave the teacher to state courts on those questions.45
Burger highlighted that property interests are defined by independent sources such as state law rather than by federal constitutional mandates alone.46
Joined by Justice Douglas
Justice Marshall dissented in part on the due process issue. He would have modified the judgment of the Court of Appeals to direct the District Court to enter summary judgment for Sindermann.47 This would entitle him to a statement of reasons why his contract was not renewed and a hearing on disputed issues of fact.48
Marshall argued that the teacher’s long service and institutional understandings already established the requisite entitlement rather than merely remanding for further proceedings.49
Joined by Justice Douglas
Justice Brennan, with whom Justice Douglas joins, dissented in part in No. 70-36.50 He agreed with Justice Marshall that respondents were denied due process when their contracts were not renewed and they were not informed of the reasons and given an opportunity to respond.51 Since respondents were entitled to summary judgment on that issue, he would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in No. 71-162, and, to the extent indicated by his Brother Marshall, he would modify the judgment of the Court of Appeals in No. 70-36.52