## Facts

- Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law (LMU-DSOL) began operating in 2009 and sought provisional approval from the American Bar Association (ABA) Council in 2011.
- After a site visit and two hearings, the ABA Council denied provisional approval in December 2011, finding LMU-DSOL had not shown “substantial compliance” with ABA accreditation standards.
- The ABA cited concerns including changed conditions without revisiting feasibility assumptions, failure to meet enrollment projections, lowered admissions credentials relative to projections, inadequate academic support, readmission of many academically dismissed students, and inconsistent academic retention/graduation standards.
- LMU-DSOL had state-level permission for graduates to sit for the Tennessee bar, but pursued ABA accreditation to improve graduate portability and perceived degree value.
- LMU-DSOL sued and sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary/permanent injunction to prevent the ABA from enforcing the denial and to secure functional accreditation-like relief during litigation.
- The ABA’s denial allowed LMU-DSOL to reapply within about ten months and internal ABA review mechanisms remained available.

## Issues

1. Whether LMU-DSOL showed a likelihood of success that the ABA’s denial was unlawful (e.g., arbitrary/capricious or procedurally unfair) under the limited judicial review applied to accreditation decisions.
2. Whether LMU-DSOL established irreparable harm, favorable equities, and alignment with the public interest sufficient to justify injunctive relief that would effectively override an accreditor’s decision.

## Decision

- The court denied the requested temporary restraining order and preliminary/permanent injunctive relief.
- The court held LMU-DSOL failed to show a strong likelihood of success on the merits given the deference owed to accrediting bodies and the record supporting the ABA’s stated reasons.
- The court found the asserted harms to LMU-DSOL and students, while significant, were not shown to be irreparable to the degree required for a mandatory injunction effectively conferring accreditation.
- The court concluded the balance of hardships and the public interest favored leaving the accreditation determination in place while internal processes and litigation continued.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires consideration of: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury absent relief; (3) harm to others from granting relief; and (4) the public interest.
- Courts apply substantial deference to decisions by recognized accrediting bodies and do not reweigh academic judgments absent a rare showing that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to law, or procedurally unfair.
- Procedural fairness in accreditation review generally turns on whether the institution had notice of concerns, an opportunity to respond, and decisionmaking consistent with the accreditor’s established procedures.
- Mandatory injunctive relief that would effectively grant accreditation is disfavored, particularly where internal appeal and reapplication routes remain available.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enjoin the ABA’s denial of provisional accreditation because LMU-DSOL did not demonstrate a strong likelihood of proving the decision unlawful under deferential review, did not establish irreparable harm warranting a mandatory injunction, and did not show that overriding the accreditor’s determination would better serve the public interest than preserving the integrity of accreditation processes.


Lincoln Mem’l Univ. Duncan Sch. of L. v. Am. Bar Ass’n, No. 3:11-CV-608, 2012 WL 137851 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 18, 2012)