Thus because the public college professors and staff members dismissed from an office held under tenure have a property interest in their jobs, the property interest is safeguarded by due process. Thus, the Court made it clear that due process is required when depriving an individual of his property right, including a public employee's earned tenure. Additionally, the court has also made it clear that the property interest must be a present one and not one perceived or one that a person might have in the future.
Here, the court is not saying that Roth was not injured. Indeed the question is not actually answered because the court's examination ends once they conclude that that Roth's position is not one that is a vested property right and therefore not subject to constitution protection. As the court noted: "In these circumstances, the respondent surely had an abstract concern in being rehired, but he did not have a property interest sufficient to require the University authorities to give him a hearing when they declined to renew his contract of employment." Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction to decide what if an injury was suffered by Roth, because his constitutional rights have not been affected. Once the federal court concludes that there is no jurisdiction, that is the end of the inquiry. As to" implications of non-renewal for a faculty member's career path" I think that the implications are rather clear. If one in applying for a position at a public school or university, they are best advised to learn first what the tenured track is, and further to understand that without tenure, there is not a property right thus no protectionsat least on a constitutional level.
Question 2 - What institutional practices or policies may create a constitutionally -protected property interest in one's job May faculty members in private institutions have such a property interest in their jobs
Board of Regents v Roth demonstrates the Federal Courts' definition of property for constitutional purposes and due process protection examination. Against that backdrop, I would say that a public facility such as a state hospital, public school or library that has the offering of a position which can be substantially likened to the tenure track of a public university is one that could create a constitutionally protected property right. A crucial point to remember though is that the Court concluded that Roth had no "liberty" interest in any specific teaching job, and that he had no "property" interest in his job because he lacked "a legitimate claim of entitlement" under state law to his job. Property interests, the Court stress, must be found in the statutory or common law of the jurisdiction. Thus if there is no statutory or common law authority regarding the position, there is no constitutional protection to be afforded. Without a legitimate claim of entitlement to his job, the Court reasoned, there is nothing to have a hearing about.
Faculty members in the private sector do not have any constitutional protections in a privately held university. The United States Constitution does not apply to every form of employment in the United States. The first issue with any federal claim is that it had to have been committed by a state actor and under color of state