Where a massage and beauty school was likely to prevail on its claim that it was denied due process by an accrediting commission, which mailed several notices, a letter of inquiry and an order to show cause to the address of the institution’s former owner, despite notice that the former owner had died, it was granted a temporary restraining order allowing it to challenge the accreditation withdrawal decision.
Background
New Concept Massage & Beauty School, Inc. seeks a temporary restraining order, or TRO, requiring the National Accrediting Commission of Career Arts and Sciences, Inc. to refrain from withdrawing plaintiff’s accreditation as an educational institution, to reinstate plaintiff’s accreditation which defendant terminated on or about Dec. 12, 2025, and to refrain from taking further action against plaintiff without providing due process of law.
A grant of temporary injunctive relief requires the movant to establish the same four factors that govern preliminary injunctions: (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiff if the TRO is denied; (2) the likelihood of harm to the defendants if the TRO is granted; (3) the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits and (4) the public interest.
Likelihood of success
Defendant mailed several notices, a letter of inquiry and an order to show cause to plaintiff’s former owner prior to revoking plaintiff’s accreditation. 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 death; (iii) defendant sent the notices only to the former owner despite knowledge of her death and (iv) no notices were sent to any of the other campuses.
In an action challenging an accreditation agency’s revocation of accreditation, courts owe “great deference” to the agency’s decision. In light of the deference due, “[f]ederal
courts have consistently limited their review of decisions of accrediting associations to whether the decisions were arbitrary and unreasonable . . .”.
Defendant’s decision to continuously send notices to the former owner’s address despite notice that the former owner had died is unreasonable. Because disputes over the estate of the former owner caused uncertainty about the new primary contact, and given that plaintiff was unresponsive to the letters mailed to the former owner’s address, out of caution and to comport with due process, defendant should have mailed notices to all of the registered addresses on file for plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff has established a likelihood of success on the merits of its Due Process claim.
However, the relief sought – restoration of accreditation – goes “far beyond the focus of procedural fairness to refashion the accreditation decision on the merits.” Plaintiff has not successfully demonstrated that, if not for the deficient notice, it would still be accredited. Thus, plaintiff is entitled to a re-opened appeal period so that it may challenge the withdrawal of its accreditation because it did not receive the notices sent to its former owner but is not entitled to a restoration of accreditation itself, as that would merge too far with the ultimate resolution of this case.
Balancing irreparable harm
Defendant is unlikely to suffer any cognizable harm from the issuance of a limited TRO, as the TRO will merely re-open the appeal window regarding the withdrawal of accreditation. Without a mechanism to challenge the withdrawal of their accreditation, plaintiff’s school will be unable to obtain Title IV funds and may be forced to close some or all of its campuses.
If plaintiff is unable to challenge the lapse in its accreditation status and remains unaccredited for a significant period, it will result in reputational harm and a loss of goodwill. In similar circumstances, courts have found that the balance of harms tips in favor of the schools because absent accreditation, existing or prospective students would lose what was presumptively a valuable institution performing an important service.
Public interest
Any matter involving an institution of higher learning will implicate the public interest, locally and (varying with the geographic reach of the particular school) even nationally or internationally. The court cannot identify any critical public interest that would be adversely affected by the partial grant of a temporary restraining order reinstating plaintiff’s period to appeal its accreditation revocation.
Bond
A district court has discretion to set the bond amount where it deems proper, but “it is not free to disregard the bond requirement altogether.” The court determines that plaintiff should post a bond in the amount of $5,000.
Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order granted in part, deferred in part.
New Concept Massage & Beauty School, Inc. v. National Accrediting Commission of Career Arts and Sciences, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-354, Feb. 16, 2026. EDVA at Alexandria (Alston). VLW 026-3-078. 10 pp.
