# Perry v. Sindermann > Supreme Court of the United States · June 29, 1972 · 408 U.S. 593 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425015 ## Case - **Full name:** PERRY Et Al. v. SINDERMANN - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 29, 1972 - **Citations:** 408 U.S. 593; 1 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 33; 92 S. Ct. 2694; 33 L. Ed. 2d 570; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 20 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Marshall - **Judges:** Stewart, Burger, White, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Brennan, Douglas, Marshall, Powell - **Cited by:** 4,763 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Reported overruled on other grounds by Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) — not on the Supreme Court's list. - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 4 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425015 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating that the government may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests — -especially, his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected … - concluding that "respondent’s lack of a contractual or tenure 'right' to re-employment ... is immaterial to his free speech claim. Indeed, twice before, this Court has specifically held that the nonrenewal of a nontenured public school teacher's one-year contract may not be pr… - concluding that "respondent's lack of a contractual or tenure `right' to re-employment... is immaterial to his free speech claim. Indeed, twice before, this Court has specifically held that the non-renewal of a non-tenured public school teacher's one-year contract may not be p… - holding that “[a] person’s interest in a benefit is a ‘property’ interest for due process purposes if there are such rules or mutually explicit understandings that support his claim of entitlement to the benefit and that he may invoke a hearing” and finding that a teacher’s wr… - stating “[t]he respondent has alleged that his nonretention was based on his testimony before legislative committees and his other public statements critical of the Regents’ policies. And he has alleged that this public criticism was within the First ... Amendment’s] protectio… ## Opinion text *605 Mr. Justice Marshall, dissenting in part. Respondent was a teacher in the state college system of the State of Texas for a decade before the Board of Regents of Odessa Junior College decided not to renew his contract. He brought this suit in Federal District Court' claiming that the decision not to rehire him was in retaliation for his public criticism of the policies of the college administration in violation of the First Amendment, and that because the decision was made without giving him a statement of reasons and a hearing, it denied him the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioners, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. This Court affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals. I agree with Part I of the Court’s opinion holding that respondent has presented a bona fide First Amendment claim that should be considered fully by the District Court. But, for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Board of Regents v. Roth, No. 71-162, ante, p. 587, I would modify the judgment of the Court of Appeals to direct the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent entitling him to a statement of reasons why his contract was not renewed and a hearing on disputed issues of fact. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425015. Public record. Not legal advice.