We conclude that, as a matter of law, Miller was not deprived of any property or liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. See id. at 572-78, 92 S.Ct. at 2706-10; Maples v. Martin, 858 F.2d 1546, 1550-51 (11th Cir. 1988); Brown v. Brienen, 722 F.2d 360, 365 (7th Cir. 1983); Peloza v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 782 F. Supp. 1412, 1420 (C.D.Cal. 1992). Because the commission's warning letter was not of sufficient magnitude to implicate any of Miller's property or liberty interests, the commission could have issued the letter without affording him procedural due process.
that Plaintiffs have failed to allege an Establishment Clause violation here because "it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause." McLean v. Arkansas Bd. of Ed., 529 F.Supp. 1255, 1274 (E.D. Ark. 1982); see, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, (1987) (state law prohibiting teaching evolution unless also taught with creation science violates First Amendment); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 106 (1968) (banning the teaching of evolution in public schools violates the First Amendment); Wright v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 366 F.Supp. 1208, 1210-11 (S.D. Tex. 1972) (educational material covering the subject of evolution "is peripheral to the matter of religion" and therefore does not offend the First Amendment), aff'd, 486 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1973); Peloza v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 782 F.Supp. 1412, 1417-18 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (rejecting argument that evolution is a religion), judgment aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 37 F.3d 517, 520-21 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirming district court's holding that evolution is not a religion); 68 Am. Jur. 2d Schools ยง 415 (2024) ("The mandated teaching of evolution as a major theme of science is not a violation of the Establishment Clause since evolution is not a religion."). Plaintiffs appear to have pled their Establishment Clause claim under the since-abrogated standard set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971).
Other courts have likewise found substantial university control over grading policies and teaching methods. Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., 782 F. Supp. 1412, 1416 (C.D.Cal. 1992) (holding that a high school biology teacher has no "constitutional right to conduct himself as a loose cannon in his classroom . . . and teach scientific theories of his own choosing"), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994); Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 665 F.2d 547, 552 (5th Cir.) (holding nontenured teacher could be terminated for refusing to give an unearned grade to a student), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1106, 102 S.Ct. 2906, 73 L.Ed.2d 1315 (1982); Hetrick v. Martin, 480 F.2d 705, 708-09 (6th Cir.) (upholding university's decision to decline to renew a nontenured teacher because of her pedagogical methods; the pedagogical methods at issue included stating, in the classroom, "I am an unwed mother"), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1075, 94 S.Ct. 592, 38 L.Ed.2d 482 (1973); Clark v. Holmes, 474 F.2d 928, 931-32 (7th Cir. 1972) (upholding university's decision to decline to renew a nontenured teacher because of the teacher's refusal to conform