Part III of John's dissent in this case takes the position that since the Court of Appeals did not pass on the issue of whether respondent had a "property interest" in his employment, the judgement of the District Court should not be ordered reinstated but instead the case simply reversed and the Court of Appeals left free to consider that matter if it chooses to do so upon remand. Bill Brennan has sent around a note indicating his sympathy with John's point of view. It seems to me there are three alternative ways to deal with the question, two of which would be acceptable to me and one of which would not.
Rehnquist, W.H. Memorandum to the Conference, Codd V. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977). Box 367, Harry A. Blackmun Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.