The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a lower court decision that upheld the withdrawal of accreditation from an online university, emphasizing the federal courts' general deference to approved accreditation agencies in higher education disputes.
In *Center for Excellence in Higher Education, Inc. v. Accreditation Alliance of Career Schools and Colleges* (4th Cir. 2026), a three-judge panel unanimously affirmed the district court's ruling in favor of the accrediting agency. Judge Wynn wrote the opinion, joined by Chief Judge Diaz and Judge Harris.
The case began when the Accreditation Alliance of Career Schools and Colleges, doing business as the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges, withdrew accreditation from the Center for Excellence in Higher Education, an online university. The accreditation agency's decision was subsequently affirmed by an arbitrator.
Rather than accepting the arbitrator's ruling, the Center for Excellence brought the dispute to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The university filed both a motion to vacate the arbitration decision and a separate complaint challenging the accreditation withdrawal. District Judge Rossie David Alston Jr. ruled against the university on both claims.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit emphasized the importance of judicial deference to accreditation agencies and arbitrators in these matters. "We generally defer to approved accreditation agencies in deciding whether a university deserves accreditation," Judge Wynn wrote in the opinion. "When that accreditation decision is affirmed by an arbitrator, our review is doubly deferential."
The court's decision underscores the critical importance of accreditation in higher education. As Judge Wynn noted in the opinion, "To receive federal funding (and thus, realistically, to survive), an educational institution must be accredited." This statement highlights why accreditation disputes can be existential matters for educational institutions, particularly those that rely heavily on federal financial aid programs.
The case reflects the broader regulatory framework governing higher education accreditation. Accrediting agencies serve as gatekeepers that determine which institutions can access federal student aid programs. These agencies must themselves be approved by the U.S. Department of Education to perform this function, creating a multi-layered system of oversight and accountability.
The Fourth Circuit's emphasis on "doubly deferential" review when an arbitrator has affirmed an accreditation decision signals that universities challenging such determinations face a steep uphill battle in federal court. This standard suggests courts will be reluctant to second-guess the professional judgment of accrediting agencies, particularly when those decisions have been reviewed through arbitration processes.
The case was argued before the appeals court on December 9, 2025, with the decision issued on February 5, 2026. The Center for Excellence was represented by David Aleksander Obuchowicz of Gombos Leyton PC in Fairfax, Virginia. The Accreditation Alliance was represented by Michael Randolph Shebelskie of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP in Richmond, Virginia, with Lewis F. Powell III also appearing on the brief.
The ruling comes at a time when accreditation standards and processes face increased scrutiny from various stakeholders in higher education. Online universities, in particular, have faced heightened regulatory attention in recent years, with accreditors examining their educational quality, student outcomes, and business practices more closely.
For the Center for Excellence, the loss of accreditation effectively cuts off access to federal financial aid programs, which typically represent the primary funding source for students at online institutions. Without accreditation, the university cannot participate in Title IV federal student aid programs, making it extremely difficult to attract and retain students.
The decision also reinforces the authority of accrediting agencies to enforce their standards and withdraw accreditation when institutions fail to meet requirements. This authority is essential to maintaining the integrity of the accreditation system and protecting students from substandard educational programs.
The Fourth Circuit's ruling establishes clear precedent within its jurisdiction, which covers Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. Universities in these states that face adverse accreditation decisions will now be on notice that federal courts will apply highly deferential review standards, particularly when arbitration has been involved.
Looking ahead, the Center for Excellence could potentially seek Supreme Court review of the decision, though the high court's discretionary jurisdiction makes such review unlikely unless the case presents issues of national significance or conflicts with decisions from other circuit courts.
The case demonstrates the practical reality that accreditation disputes are typically resolved within the higher education regulatory framework rather than through federal litigation. The Fourth Circuit's decision reinforces this structure by confirming that courts will generally respect the expertise and judgment of approved accreditation agencies in evaluating educational institutions.