Bristol University v. Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges & Schools
691 F. App'x 737
4th Cir.2017Background
- Bristol University (California, for-profit) sought renewal from ACICS; ACICS found numerous deficiencies after site visits and denied renewal in Dec 2015 based on 24 unresolved violations. ACICS extended accreditation briefly to allow preparation for loss.
- Bristol appealed to ACICS’s independent Review Board; it affirmed ACICS’s denial. Bristol then sued in federal district court alleging federal common‑law due‑process violations and negligence per se under the Higher Education Act; it obtained a TRO and a preliminary injunction staying the withdrawal.
- The district court granted the preliminary injunction, finding ACICS skipped a compliance‑warning step, failed to give clear deadlines, and that the Review Board provided no rationale—concluding Bristol was likely to succeed on its due‑process claim.
- On ACICS’s appeal, the Fourth Circuit considered jurisdiction (diversity found) and reviewed whether the injunction was properly granted under the preliminary injunction factors, focusing on likelihood of success on the merits (arbitrary and capricious / substantial evidence standard for accrediting agencies).
- The Fourth Circuit reversed: ACICS had authority under its Accreditation Criteria to deny renewal, gave notice and opportunities to respond, was not required to explain why it chose denial over additional time, and did not violate the procedures in effect when it acted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bristol showed likelihood of success on a federal common‑law due‑process claim against ACICS | ACICS ignored its own procedures (skipped compliance warning), failed to give clear deadlines, and Review Board gave no rationale | ACICS complied with its Accreditation Criteria, gave notice and opportunities, and was permitted to deny accreditation without explaining alternative sanctions | Reversed: Bristol not likely to succeed; ACICS acted within its criteria and due‑process obligations were satisfied |
| Whether ACICS/Review Board had to explain why it denied renewal rather than grant more time | Bristol: must justify choosing denial over remediation to satisfy fairness | ACICS: Criteria allow denial; no obligation to consider or explain alternatives in detail | Held: No requirement to explain why alternative (more time) was not chosen; denial supported by identified deficiencies |
| Whether ACICS violated its internal procedures by issuing a deferral and show‑cause without a compliance warning or clear deadlines | Bristol: procedural irregularity (no compliance warning; unclear timelines) undermines decision | ACICS: compliance warning requirement postdated its actions (effective Jan 1, 2016); ACICS provided deadlines and extensions already | Held: No procedural violation; compliance warning requirement was not yet in effect and ACICS provided opportunities and deadlines |
| Jurisdictional justiciability in light of ACICS losing federal recognition | Bristol: federal claims remain; district court had jurisdiction (complaint invoked federal statutes) | ACICS: diversity jurisdiction exists; appealable interlocutory order; mootness argument later raised in concurrence | Held by majority: Diversity jurisdiction existed and merits review proceeded; concurrence would dismiss as moot due to subsequent loss of ACICS federal recognition |
Key Cases Cited
- Prof'l Massage Training Ctr., Inc. v. Accreditation All. of Career Schs. & Colls., 781 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2015) (recognizes federal common‑law due‑process‑like duty for federally recognized accreditors and standard of review)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (agency not required to consider all policy alternatives; arbitrary and capricious review principles)
- Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2001) (agency need not expressly discuss every alternative sanction considered)
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) (amount in controversy for injunctive relief measured by value of the object of the litigation)
- Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for preliminary injunctions: abuse of discretion)
- Nader v. Blair, 549 F.3d 953 (4th Cir. 2008) (agency action invalid where agency fails to follow its own procedures)
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (vacatur and dismissal appropriate when case becomes moot on appeal)