|
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972)
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring.*
I concur in the Court’s judgments and opinions in Sindermann and Roth, but there is one central point in both decisions that I would like to underscore, since it may have been obscured in the comprehensive discussion of the cases. That point is that the relationship between a state institution and one of its teachers is essentially a matter of state concern and state law. The Court holds today only that a state employed teacher who has a right to reemployment under state law, arising from either an express or implied contract has, in turn, a right, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, to some form of prior administrative or academic hearing on the cause for nonrenewal of his contract. Thus, whether a particular teacher in a particular context has any right to such administrative hearing hinges on a question of state law. The Court’s opinion makes this point very sharply:
Property interests . . . are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law. . . .
Board of Regents v. Roth, ante at 577.
Because the availability of the Fourteenth Amendment right to a prior administrative hearing turns in each case on a question of state law, the issue of abstention will arise in future cases contesting whether a particular teacher is entitled to a hearing prior to nonrenewal of his contract. If relevant state contract law is unclear, a federal court should, in my view, abstain from deciding whether he is constitutionally entitled to a prior hearing, and the teacher should be left to resort to state courts on the questions arising under state law.
* This opinion applies also to No. 71-162, Board of Regents of State Colleges et al. v. Roth, ante, p. 564.
Contents:
Chicago: Burger, "Burger, J., Concurring," Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972) in 408 U.S. 593 408 U.S. 604. Original Sources, accessed April 25, 2024, http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=PWKQKKHD39C3PKG.
MLA: Burger. "Burger, J., Concurring." Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972), in 408 U.S. 593, page 408 U.S. 604. Original Sources. 25 Apr. 2024. http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=PWKQKKHD39C3PKG.
Harvard: Burger, 'Burger, J., Concurring' in Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972). cited in 1972, 408 U.S. 593, pp.408 U.S. 604. Original Sources, retrieved 25 April 2024, from http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=PWKQKKHD39C3PKG.
|