## Facts

- Nova University, a Florida nonprofit university, operated off-site “cluster” doctoral programs with students meeting locally and receiving instruction from a mix of Fort Lauderdale-based faculty and local preceptors/contract instructors.
- Nova sought a District of Columbia license to offer a Doctorate of Public Administration (DPA) program in the District.
- The Educational Institution Licensure Commission, the agency charged with licensing degree programs offered in the District to protect residents from fraudulent or substandard institutions, reviewed Nova’s application under D.C. Code § 29-815 and implementing regulations.
- The Commission denied Nova’s application without prejudice, finding the proposed D.C. operation did not meet requirements for (1) adequate full-time faculty presence and (2) adequate library resources available to D.C. students.
- Nova petitioned for judicial review, challenging the statute’s applicability, asserting First Amendment and vagueness objections, and arguing the denial lacked evidentiary support.

## Issues

1. Whether the District’s licensing statute applies when an out-of-state university offers degree courses within the District but formally confers the degree elsewhere.
2. Whether the licensing scheme violates the First Amendment on its face or as applied to Nova’s program.
3. Whether the statute and regulations are unconstitutionally vague, including requirements framed in terms such as “adequate” faculty and library resources.
4. Whether the Commission’s denial was arbitrary or capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.

## Decision

- The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s denial of Nova’s license application.
- The court held the licensing statute covers institutions offering degree programs within the District, even if the degree is conferred outside the District.
- The court rejected Nova’s First Amendment challenge, treating the licensing standards as content-neutral quality regulation rather than control of ideas or curriculum viewpoints.
- The court rejected the vagueness challenge, concluding the statutory and regulatory standards provided sufficient notice and guidance in the context of postsecondary education.
- The court held the Commission’s findings regarding deficiencies in full-time faculty presence and library resources were supported by substantial evidence and were within the agency’s competence.

## Legal Principles

- A jurisdiction may require licensure and compliance with minimum standards from out-of-state institutions that offer degree programs within its borders, even if degrees are issued from another location.
- Quality-focused licensure requirements (e.g., faculty staffing and student access to library resources) are generally treated as content-neutral regulation of educational operations and may be sustained against First Amendment challenges absent viewpoint or content discrimination.
- General regulatory terms such as “adequate” may satisfy due process when professional norms, supplementary regulations, and the regulated entity’s sophistication provide workable meaning and constrain enforcement discretion.
- On review of an administrative denial of licensure, courts uphold the agency decision when supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious, especially where the decision rests on the agency’s specialized judgment.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the District’s authority to license and set minimum operational standards for degree programs offered in the District, rejected constitutional challenges based on academic freedom and vagueness, and sustained the Commission’s denial because the record supported findings that Nova’s proposed program lacked sufficient full-time faculty presence and local library resources for D.C. students.


Nova Univ. v. Educ. Inst. Licensure Comm’n, 483 A.2d 1172 (D.C. 1984)