C.F.R. » Title 34 » CHAPTER VI—OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION › PART 602—THE SECRETARY'S RECOGNITION OF ACCREDITING AGENCIES › Subpart B—The Criteria for Recognition

34 C.F.R. § 602.25

Due process

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The agency must demonstrate that the procedures it uses throughout the accrediting process satisfy due process. The agency meets this requirement if the agency does the following:

(a) Provides adequate written specification of its requirements, including clear standards, for an institution or program to be accredited or preaccredited.

(b) Uses procedures that afford an institution or program a reasonable period of time to comply with the agency's requests for information and documents.

(c) Provides written specification of any deficiencies identified at the institution or program examined.

(d) Provides sufficient opportunity for a written response by an institution or program regarding any deficiencies identified by the agency, to be considered by the agency within a timeframe determined by the agency, and before any adverse action is taken.

(e) Notifies the institution or program in writing of any adverse accrediting action or an action to place the institution or program on probation or show cause. The notice describes the basis for the action.

(f) Provides an opportunity, upon written request of an institution or program, for the institution or program to appeal any adverse action prior to the action becoming final.

(1) The appeal must take place at a hearing before an appeals panel that—

(i) May not include current members of the agency's decision-making body that took the initial adverse action;

(ii) Is subject to a conflict of interest policy;

(iii) Does not serve only an advisory or procedural role, and has and uses the authority to make the following decisions: To affirm, amend, or remand adverse actions of the original decision-making body; and

(iv) Affirms, amends, or remands the adverse action. A decision to affirm or amend the adverse action is implemented by the appeals panel or by the original decision-making body, at the agency's option; however, in the event of a decision by the appeals panel to remand the adverse action to the original decision-making body for further consideration, the appeals panel must explain the basis for a decision that differs from that of the original decision-making body and the original decision-making body in a remand must act in a manner consistent with the appeals panel's decisions or instructions.

(2) The agency must recognize the right of the institution or program to employ counsel to represent the institution or program during its appeal, including to make any presentation that the agency permits the institution or program to make on its own during the appeal.

(g) The agency notifies the institution or program in writing of the result of its appeal and the basis for that result.

(h)(1) The agency must provide for a process, in accordance with written procedures, through which an institution or program may, before the agency reaches a final adverse action decision, seek review of new financial information if all of the following conditions are met:

(i) The financial information was unavailable to the institution or program until after the decision subject to appeal was made.

(ii) The financial information is significant and bears materially on the financial deficiencies identified by the agency. The criteria of significance and materiality are determined by the agency.

(iii) The only remaining deficiency cited by the agency in support of a final adverse action decision is the institution's or program's failure to meet an agency standard pertaining to finances.

(2) An institution or program may seek the review of new financial information described in paragraph (h)(1) of this section only once and any determination by the agency made with respect to that review does not provide a basis for an appeal.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b) [74 FR 55429, Oct. 27, 2009, as amended at 84 FR 58925, Nov. 1, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case: William Loveland Coll. v. Distance Educ. Accreditation Comm'n, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
William Loveland Coll. v. Distance Educ. Accreditation Comm'n, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 6× “§ 1099b(a)(6) ; 34 C.F.R. § 602.25 . The accrediting agency must also have procedures in place for providing written notice about certain accrediting decisions to the public, the Secretary of Education, and the appropriate State licensing or authorizing agency.”
Bristol Univ. v. Accrediting Council for Indep. Colleges & Schs., 691 F. App'x 737 (4th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 1099b(6) and its supporting regulation, 34 C.F.R. § 602.25 . Although the Administrative Procedure Act does not specifically apply to private accrediting agencies for education institutions, “principles of administrative law are useful in determining the standard by which we…”
ASA Coll., Inc. v. Mid-Atl. Region Comm'n on Higher Educ. (S.D.N.Y. 2025). · cites it 7× “25 : In sum, to ensure due process, the Code of Federal Regulations requires accrediting agencies to set clear standards; identify deficiencies at particular institutions in writing; provide those institutions with an opportunity to respond and comply within a reasonable time…”
William Loveland Coll. v. Distance Educ. Accredition Comm'n (D.D.C. 2018). · cites it 6× “§ 1099b(a)(6); 34 C.F.R. § 602.25 . The accrediting agency must also have procedures in place for providing written notice about certain accrediting decisions to the public, the Secretary of Education, and the appropriate State licensing or authorizing agency.”
Nat'l Univ. of Health v. Council on Chiropractic Edu., 980 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 2020). “” 34 C.F.R. § 602.25 (c)–(e). According to NUHS, CCE imposed the sanction of probation without first providing written notification of any deficiencies and without providing the opportunity to submit a written response.”
Prof'l Massage Training Ctr., Inc. v. Accreditation All. of Career Schs. & Colleges, 951 F. Supp. 2d 851 (E.D. Va. 2012). “Likelihood of Success on the Merits PMTC claims that it was entitled to due process pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 602.25 throughout ACCSC’s decision to terminate accreditation, and that ACCSC denied it that due process (see Comp.”
Ctr. for Excellence in Higher Educ., Inc. v. Accreditation All. of Career Schs. & Colleges (E.D. Va. 2023). “§ 1099b(a)(6); 34 C.F.R. § 602.25 . William Loveland Coll.”
Ctr. for Excellence in Higher Educ., Inc. v. Accreditation All. of Career Schs. & Colleges (E.D. Va. 2025). “§ 1099b(a)(6); 34 C.F.R. § 602.25 . William Loveland Coll.”
New Concept Massage & Beauty Sch., Inc. v. Nat'l Accrediting Comm'n of Career Arts & Sciences, Inc. (E.D. Va. 2026). “Plaintiff argues that these notices did not fairly provide notice to Plaintiff because: (i) Defendant was aware of the former owner’s death; (ii) Ignacio Garcia was listed as the primary contact for notices from Defendant on the form informing Defendant of the former owner’s…”
New Concept Massage & Beauty Sch., Inc. v. Nat'l Accrediting Comm'n of Career Arts & Sciences, Inc. (E.D. Va. 2026). “By failing to provide notice to a stakeholder who could act on behalf of Plaintiff and by precluding stakeholders from acting on behalf of Plaintiff while proceeding with a revocation of Plaintiff’s accreditation status, Plaintiff appears likely able to show that Defendant…”
— 34 C.F.R. § 602.25(e) — 2 cases
William Loveland Coll. v. Distance Educ. Accreditation Comm'n, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “§ 1099b(a)(6) ; 34 C.F.R. § 602.25 . The accrediting agency must also have procedures in place for providing written notice about certain accrediting decisions to the public, the Secretary of Education, and the appropriate State licensing or authorizing agency.”
William Loveland Coll. v. Distance Educ. Accredition Comm'n (D.D.C. 2018). “§ 1099b(a)(6); 34 C.F.R. § 602.25 . The accrediting agency must also have procedures in place for providing written notice about certain accrediting decisions to the public, the Secretary of Education, and the appropriate State licensing or authorizing agency.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.