In Bishop v. Wood et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a public employee's dismissal did not violate his constitutional rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, as he had no property interest in continued employment. The case involved Marion Bishop, a police officer in North Carolina who was fired by his superior without any formal charges or explanation for his termination. He sued on grounds of violation of procedural due process and freedom of speech protections but both claims were dismissed by lower courts. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, it held that since North Carolina law did not guarantee him tenure during good behavior nor restrict dismissals to cause only, Bishop could be terminated at will without necessitating due process protections. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to support an alleged First Amendment violation as he failed to prove his dismissal resulted from exercising free speech rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Bishop v. Wood, Justice William J. Brennan Jr., joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall and Byron White, argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding public employment rights. They contended that Marion Bishop had a constitutionally protected property interest in his continued employment as a policeman because he could only be discharged for cause under North Carolina law and local ordinances governing municipal employees' terms of service. The dissenting justices criticized the majority's reliance on an ambiguous statement made by city officials to deny Bishop due process protections before termination, arguing it contradicted previous rulings where similar statements were deemed insufficient to negate statutory or regulatory provisions establishing job security expectations. They also disagreed with the majority’s view that federal courts should defer to state court interpretations of state laws when determining whether there is a federally protectable property interest at stake.