{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04234527687296417, 'fraction_numerical': 0.06080347448425624, 'mean_word_length': 4.455621301775148, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Regretting Roth ? Why and How the Supreme Court Could Deprive Tenured Public Teachers of Due Process Rights in Employment

INTRODUCTION 593 I. PREVAILING LAW: THE ROTH/PERRY APPROACH 595 A. Before Roth and Perry 595 B. Setting the Standard: Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth 596 C. Elaborating the Standard: Perry v. Sindermann 597 D. “Discretion Formulation” of the Roth/Perry Approach 598 II. REGRET AND RETRENCHMENT 599 A. Seeds of Regret: Dissatisfaction with Roth/Perry in Due Process Cases 600 1. Sandin v. Conner 600 2. Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales 602 B. Signs of Retrenchment: Restricting Public Employees’ Constitutional Rights 605 1. Speech: Garcetti v. Ceballos 605 2. Equal Protection: Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture 606 3. Implications: Common Trend, Separate Traditions 608 III. SELECT STATE PERFORMANCE-BASED PUBLIC TEACHER EMPLOYMENT STATUTES 610 A. Illinois 610 B. Michigan 612