Board of Regents v. Roth

Roth's one-year contract with the university created no constitutionally protected property interest in reemployment because it was explicitly limited in duration and did not constitute a promise of continued employment beyond its terms. Wisconsin state law and university policy provided no independent source creating a legitimate entitlement to renewal. Roth possessed only a contractual right to compensation during the contract year, not a claim of continuing employment. Although Roth had a reasonable expectation of rehiring based on his job performance and status as an assistant professor, the Court determined that subjective expectation alone cannot create a property interest; the source must be external law or policy, not unilateral wishes. Therefore, the university could decline to renew without satisfying procedural due process requirements, as there was no deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest in the first place.