Perry v. Sindermann

Supreme Court of the United States · 1972 · Administrative Law

408 U.S. 593 (1972)

Updated August 1, 2026

Administrative Lawproperty interestsde facto tenureFirst Amendmentprocedural due processpublic employmentnonrenewalproperty interest

Facts

Sindermann taught in the Texas state college system from 1959 to 1969 and at Odessa Junior College for four successive years under one-year contracts. During the 1968-1969 year, he publicly criticized the college Board of Regents, testified before Texas legislative committees, and became involved in disputes over college policy. When his contract expired in May 1969, the Board voted not to offer him a new contract, issued a press release alleging insubordination, but gave him no official statement of reasons and no hearing. Sindermann alleged both that the nonrenewal was retaliation for protected speech and that the college's practices and rules created a tenure-like entitlement to continued employment.

Issue

Does a public college teacher's lack of tenure or contractual right to reemployment, by itself, defeat a claim that nonrenewal was unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech? And may such a teacher nevertheless have a procedural due process right to a hearing if he can show a property interest in continued employment arising from rules or understandings amounting to de facto tenure?

Rule

A public employer may not refuse to rehire an employee on a basis that infringes constitutionally protected speech, regardless of whether the employee has tenure or a contractual right to reemployment. For procedural due process purposes, a person has a property interest in continued employment when existing rules or mutually explicit understandings support a legitimate claim of entitlement to that benefit; a mere subjective expectancy is not enough.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Patel taught at a public technical college in Tulsa under consecutive one-year contracts. After she spoke at city council meetings and published an op-ed criticizing the college's plan to eliminate adult-literacy courses, the college declined to renew her contract, and administrators defended the decision solely by noting that she had no tenure and no right to reappointment.

If Nina sues alleging unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech, which is the strongest response under the governing rule?

Explanation. A public employer may not deny reemployment on a basis that infringes constitutionally protected speech, even if the employee lacks tenure or any contractual right to reemployment. The absence of a right to the job is immaterial to the First Amendment retaliation claim. The employee still must prove the nonrenewal was actually based on protected speech, but the claim is not barred at the outset.