303 F. Supp. 3d 77
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- The Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (the Accrediting Council) sought renewal of the Department of Education's recognition as a national accreditor; the Department staff found multiple noncompliances and recommended denial.
- The Department solicited supplemental questions (Part I and Part II); the Accrediting Council produced a large Part II submission (a 27‑page narrative plus ~36,000 pages of documents) but the Department staff did not incorporate that thumb‑drive submission into the recognition record.
- The Advisory Committee voted to revoke recognition; the senior Department official adopted many staff findings and concluded the Council could not demonstrate full compliance within 12 months.
- The Secretary affirmed denial of renewal; the Accrediting Council sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), seeking review and injunctive relief. District Court denied emergency relief and heard cross‑motions for summary judgment.
- The court found the Secretary’s decision reviewable under the APA but concluded the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously in failing to consider relevant evidence (notably the Part II submission and certain data‑integrity/placement verification materials) and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Secretary's decision on remedy (deny vs. conditional renewal) is judicially reviewable | Council: the Secretary's remedy choice is reviewable because statute/regulations supply standards and the decision must consider all relevant evidence | Gov: remedy choice is committed to agency discretion by law and thus unreviewable under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2) | Reviewable: HEA and implementing regs provide judicially manageable standards; APA review applies (court may review threshold factual determinations and procedural compliance) |
| Whether the agency violated the HEA/regulations/APA by failing to consider the Council's Part II submission | Council: Part II was solicited, relevant, and the agency's refusal to consider it violated the statutory/regulatory requirement to consider all available relevant information and the APA's requirement to examine relevant data | Gov: staff lacked time/authority to consider late material and treating the thumb drive separately was permissible; plaintiff cannot show prejudice | Arbitrary and capricious: agency violated HEA and regs by refusing to consider the Part II materials without adequate explanation; prejudicial error; remand required |
| Whether post‑Advisory Committee improvements (leadership changes, enforcement actions) must be considered by senior officials/Secretary | Council: these changes show ability to comply within 12 months and should have been considered | Gov: regs bar introduction of new evidence after Advisory Committee except in narrow exceptions; Secretary did consider post‑meeting evidence and reasonably weighed it | Agency acted within rules: regulator not required to consider evidence submitted after the Advisory Committee; Secretary did consider some post‑meeting changes and permissibly gave them less weight |
| Proper remedy after procedural error (scope of remand) | Council: asks for return to Department staff for reconsideration | Gov: no specific alternative proposed | Court remanded to Secretary for reconsideration of omitted materials (Secretary may route back to staff/Advisory Committee if appropriate); denied motion to supplement administrative record as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Ass'n of Private Sector Colls. & Univs. v. Duncan, 681 F.3d 427 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (context on Title IV and accreditation role)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard: agency must examine relevant data and articulate rational connection)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (nonreviewability where statute commits decision to agency discretion)
- Menkes v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 486 F.3d 1307 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (statutory "may" discretion still reviewable where manageable standards exist)
- PPL Wallingford Energy LLC v. FERC, 419 F.3d 1194 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (agency obligation to consider relevant data)
- Frizelle v. Slater, 111 F.3d 172 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (agencies must follow their own procedural rules)
- Amador Cty. v. Salazar, 640 F.3d 373 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (strong presumption of reviewability under APA)