## Facts

- Thomas M. Cooley Law School, an ABA-accredited Michigan law school, sought to open two satellite programs in Rochester (Oakland University) and Grand Rapids.
- ABA rules required “prior acquiescence” (advance approval) for “major changes” in an accredited school’s operations; ABA standards permitted up to 20% of a J.D. program at a satellite site without triggering the major-change approval requirement.
- While its request for approval was pending, Cooley began operating the satellite locations at levels the ABA concluded exceeded the 20% allowance.
- The ABA initiated enforcement proceedings, provided notice of the alleged violation, held a show-cause hearing, and allowed Cooley to submit written materials and present its position.
- The ABA issued written findings concluding Cooley violated the 20% rule, publicly censured Cooley, and temporarily barred operation of the satellites until 2006.
- Cooley sued, alleging the ABA violated a common-law right to due process and acted arbitrarily in interpreting and applying its accreditation standards.
- The district court entered judgment for the ABA, and Cooley appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the ABA violated Cooley’s common-law right to fair procedure in denying or restricting the satellite campuses and imposing sanctions for operating without prior acquiescence.
2. Whether the ABA’s interpretation and application of its standards (including the 20% satellite threshold and “major change” determination) were arbitrary, unreasonable, clearly erroneous, or unsupported by substantial evidence.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed judgment for the ABA.
- The court held the ABA afforded Cooley adequate common-law due process through notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a written explanation of its decision.
- The court held the ABA’s interpretation and enforcement of its standards were not arbitrary or unreasonable and were supported by substantial evidence.
- The court upheld the censure and temporary prohibition on satellite operations as within the ABA’s discretion given Cooley’s noncompliance.

## Legal Principles

- A private accrediting body exercising significant gatekeeping authority must provide fair procedure under common law, typically including notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
- The process required is not constitutional due process; courts evaluate whether procedures were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
- Courts generally defer to an accreditor’s reasonable interpretation of its own specialized standards and will not overturn accreditation-related decisions absent arbitrariness, unreasonableness, clear error, or lack of substantial evidentiary support.
- A challenger must show more than disagreement with an accreditor’s judgment; it must demonstrate procedural unfairness or a decision-making defect that materially affected the outcome.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld the ABA’s sanctions against Cooley for exceeding the permissible level of satellite instruction without prior approval, concluding the ABA used fair procedures and reasonably applied its accreditation standards based on substantial evidence.


Thomas M. Cooley Law Sch. v. Am. Bar Ass’n, 459 F.3d 705 (6th Cir. 2006)