Perry v. Sindermann
- Decided
- June 29, 1972
- Docket
- 70-36
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 5,238 timesOverruled on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled on other grounds, overruled in part on other grounds (not yet verified) · MITCHELL v. WINSTON SALEM STATE UNIVERSITY
What later courts said
- holding that the plaintiff teacher’s “lack of a contractual or tenure ‘right’ to re-employment for [another] academic year is immaterial to his free speech claim” — Kinney v. Weaver (2002)
- holding that contract of employment providing that professor could be terminated only for cause constituted property right protected by Fourteenth Amendment — Unger v. National Residents Matching Program (1991)
- holding that a protected property interest exists where there are “rules or mutually explicit understandings that support [a plaintiffs] claim of entitlement to the benefit” — Gerhart v. Lake County, Mont. (2011)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court.
From 1959 to 1969 the respondent, Robert Sindermann, was a teacher in the state college system of the State of Texas. After teaching for two years at the University of Texas and for four years at San Antonio Junior College, he became a professor of Government and Social Science at Odessa Junior College in 1965. He was employed at the college for four successive years, under a series of one-year contracts. He was successful enough to be appointed, for a time, the cochairman of his department.
During the 1968-1969 academic year, however, controversy arose between the respondent and the college administration. The respondent was elected president of the Texas Junior College Teachers Association. In this capacity, he left his teaching duties on several occasions to testify before committees of the Texas Legis [*595] lature, and he became involved in public disagreements with the policies of the college’s Board of Regents. In particular, he aligned himself with a group advocating the elevation of the college to four-year status — a change opposed by the Regents. And, on one occasion, a newspaper advertisement appeared over his name that was highly critical of the Regents.
Cite this
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.