National University of Health Sciences v. Council on Chiropractic Education, Inc., No. 19-15352 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit filed: (1) an order granting a request for publication, recalling the mandate, and withdrawing a memorandum disposition and replacing it with an opinion; and (2) an opinion affirming in part the district court's judgment denying NUHS relief from a decision of the Council, and dismissing the appeal in part as moot.
In this case, after NUHS's appeal of the Council's probation decision was denied, NUHS filed a complaint in federal court raising common law due process claims and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The district court denied relief and NUHS appealed.
The panel expressed no opinion on the validity of common law due process claims challenging decisions relating to accreditation. The panel held that, because the Council's accreditation standards contemplate situations in which a program can remain accredited even if it is not fully in compliance with all accreditation standards, the Council did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it simultaneously reaffirmed NUHS's accreditation and imposed probation. Furthermore, the Council's decision to impose probation was not arbitrary and capricious and did not violate the Council's obligation to apply review procedures consistent with due process under 20 U.S.C. 1099b. Finally, because NUHS has no further reporting obligations with respect to NBCE exams administered before the change in Illinois law, its appeal from the denial of injunctive relief prohibiting the Council from enforcing Policy 56 is moot.
Court Description: Accreditation The panel filed: (1) an order granting a request for publication, recalling the mandate, and withdrawing a memorandum disposition and replacing it with an opinion; and (2) an opinion affirming in part the district court’s judgment denying the National University of Health Sciences relief from a decision of the Council on Chiropractic Education, Inc., and dismissing the appeal in part as moot. The Council accredits chiropractic doctoral degree programs in the United States. It concluded that NUHS was not fully compliant with all accreditation standards but, nonetheless, reaffirmed its accreditation. At the same time, however, the Council notified NUHS it was placing its program on probation. NUHS raised common law due process claims, and the parties proceeded on the assumption that such a claim may be brought and that the arbitrary and capricious standard applies. The panel expressed no opinion on the validity of common law due process claims challenging decisions relating to accreditation. To maintain recognition by the Secretary of Education, an accrediting agency must comply with 20 U.S.C. § 1099b, which requires the agency to consistently and evenhandedly apply and enforce standards of accreditation and afford due process to the programs it NUHS V. CCE 3 accredits. NUHS asserted that the Council violated its due process rights because the Council’s accreditation standards did not permit it to grant reaffirmation of accredited status and, on the same record, impose probation. The panel held that because the Council’s accreditation standards contemplated situations in which a program can remain accredited even if it is not fully in compliance with all accreditation standards, the Council did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it simultaneously reaffirmed NUHS’s accreditation and imposed probation. Under § 1099b, an accrediting agency must also establish and apply review procedures that comply with due process. The panel held that the Council complied with this requirement because it adequately apprised NUHS of its concerns regarding deficiencies and provided NUHS with multiple avenues to advocate for its position. The panel concluded that NUHS’s final claim regarding national board exams was moot.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 19, 2020.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.