In the case of Perry et al. v. Sindermann, Robert Sindermann, a professor at Odessa Junior College in Texas, claimed his contract was not renewed due to his public criticism of the Texas State University System's policies which he believed violated his First Amendment rights to free speech. The college argued that since Sindermann did not have formal tenure (a job security status for teachers), they were under no obligation to renew his contract. However, Sindermann contended that an informal tenure system existed based on certain guidelines and practices within the institution. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sindermann stating that even without a contractual or tenured right to re-employment, if there is evidence suggesting an implied understanding between parties involved then it could be considered as part of employment terms and conditions - thus deserving due process protection before termination. Furthermore, it held that academic freedom is a special concern protected by the First Amendment; therefore any attempt by government employers such as state colleges/universities infringing upon this right would be unconstitutional unless justified with sufficient reasons.

In the dissenting opinion for Perry et al. v. Sindermann, Justice Black disagreed with the majority's decision that a public employee has a constitutional right to a hearing before being dismissed from their job if they have an expectation of continued employment based on informal tenure policies or practices. He argued that this ruling expanded due process rights beyond what was intended by the Constitution and could potentially lead to unnecessary litigation over dismissals in public institutions where no formal tenure system exists. Furthermore, he expressed concern about courts becoming involved in academic decisions which should be left up to educational administrators and professionals who are better equipped to make such judgments.