Court Opinion

ID: 9476932
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:09:24.403907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:35.581574
License: Public Domain

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree that this case must be remanded for the reasons stated in Judge Politz’s fine opinion, except in one respect. I am unpersuaded that the state deprived Honoré of any substantive due process rights. We otherwise have concluded that the university gave Honoré all his procedural rights. It is true that Honore’s entitlement to automatic tenure is fairly debatable. Honoré, however, has no constitutional claim to a favorable resolution of that dispute. Characterizing as arbitrary the university’s decision that Honoré has no such tenure rights does not transform this contractual dispute into a dispute of constitutional magnitude. I would affirm the district court’s decision in all respects except the question of whether Honoré was denied tenure because he engaged in protected first amendment activity.