About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


60 Tul. L. Rev. 889 (1985-1986)
Liberty, Property, and the Burger Court: The Entitlement Doctrine in Transition

handle is hein.journals/tulr60 and id is 909 raw text is: TULANE LAW REVIEW VOLUME 60 MAY 1986 NUMBER 5 LIBERTY, PROPERTY, AND THE BURGER COURT: THE ENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE IN TRANSITION KAREN H. FLAX* I. INTRODUCTION In Board of Regents v. Roth,' the Supreme Court permitted a state university to terminate a nontenured faculty member without a hearing. Refusing to treat the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment as a general guarantee against arbi- trary treatment by state agencies, Roth held that persons have rights to procedural due process only when state agencies de- prive them either of federally protected substantive rights or en- titlements-that is, liberty and property interests created in some manner by the states themselves. The Roth rule is now known as the entitlement doctrine of the fourteenth amend- ment. Since Roth, the Court has used the entitlement doctrine to reject procedural due process claims of state prisoners,2 defa- mation victims,' and governmental employees4 who claimed to be victims of arbitrary governmental action. The entitlement * Instructor of Law, Vilanova University of Law; B.A. 1980, New College; J.D. 1983, University of Miami; LL.M. 1984, New York University. 1. 408 U.S. 564 (1972). 2. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976). 3. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976). 4. See Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 144-64 (1974). 889