navigate itself in the area of accreditation the district court rulings that came out of we are bound by it and the federal court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over all of creation and an opportunity to respond and to do so in writing but the trick here is is that both for the adverse action is taken counsel so the question that i have for you is th obtain the position of the accrediting agency in writing to respond before your status actually changed although not before you were notified that you could be put on probation so why doesn't that give you the contract is in particular when you have an adverse action and if you will it is cited in in full on take seven of our initial opening bruce but if you look at this it says that d that for an adverse action we must be provided an efficient opportunity for a response by the with no program regarding any deficiency identified by the agency to be considered by the exhaust appeal remedy so that maybe doing so that means you're working on probation until you lost the appeal formally no we still have the right to to dispute it but we are being notified that we were term expressly that probation is an adverse accreditation atcha so going back to the c f r our noted is that we are going to have an opportunity to respond before they actually impose it and your hon differently about our obligation on appeal so these are two things one is the is after the sanctions imposed you're allowed to appeal that the other is before it's imposed you have an opportunity to respond the reason your honor factually we didn't have an opportunity to respond is because the very st time one iota of the word probation or deficiency is ever do or can be used based on the policy is the opportunity to respond we get to respond before they impose the sanction so counsel going to wait where you started if there are any areas where we have questions although have read your response to the motion to dismiss i want to you tell me why you think at this juncture this case isn't moot now that your or your oscar abasement and i know you talk about capable of repetition yet evading review but i mean that would require a lot of contingencies years in the future for for this to reoccur and it's not clear to cyteen always have some of them are arrived to being forthcoming some of them don't but what we now have to do is because it's been held at the district court level that was one of our opportunities to respond and now we have to assume a advocate level in ever serial level that there is a pending potential pending sanction of probation or infer other versus kind of a nd coming at that level but don't assume that but don't doesn't every school know no matter what the accreditations standards are that there is always a potential for a sanction isn't that the very purpose of an accreditation  accrediting agency that there could be something that the accreditation agency discovers that could possibly in the future lead to some sort of sanction well sure i don't i think that's something that you would anyone would have to  problem your honor is that what happened here is we're looking at a step that is required that was skipped in their own policies as they reconcile with the district court's ruling can be read as precedent to say that the university has attested to and it does go into some detail your honor miller but it doesn't go as far as if there was a full hearing on it and that is student loans that are tied to  as you know from taking the bar yourself they're tied to accreditation and bar passages back at the rate they're tied to whether or not the schooling and the credit asian so for for what happens here is that we have experienced the harm of losing faculty we've lost currently and we've lost perspective students and to say that that arm is just a race because it happened in the past and it should no longer happen in the future is how could this possibly repeated moved their requirements before but i would i would agree with you if we're competent we're counting under our feet going forward it should not occur again the due process requires that the counsel afford in this case anyway chancery d c p the opportunity to respond to written deficiencies st provide written specification of deficiencies and then an opportunity to respond and then the council was going to make some sort of decision or reach some conclusion the site team is an extension of the council it is its fact finding extension and fact finding team something that actually was suggested maybe pre emitted by buying a new h s in its own briefs so this idea that they didn't know about any deficiencies until they received a great two thousand eight hundred letter from the chair or president of the council is just not accurate in november two chiropractic degree program and then also pointing out three deficiencies section two h section two a and violations of policy fifty six dollars they were identified in that  as concerns but concerns also was defined in the report as deficiencies major to minor reflecting inconsistency or or a lack of compliance specification of deficiencies not conclusions not sanctions or consequences and that's essentially is what anyway justice is requesting of the court that it should have had an opportunity to respond to the consequences of the deficiencies or perhaps an opportunity to respond to to the penalty that was opposed in connection with the deficiencies the statute doesn't say that the regulation doesn't say that and the standards don't provide forward what they were provided in november two thousand and seven jane were specifications of deficiencies as required under the statute regulation and an opportunity to respond now to the council they actually require response and they did and the anyway just provided it a month later so they responded in writing as required under the regulation d and the statute in their own standards they responded in writing to the council's citing report yet that some independent rd party the council's citing the poor and then they responded to each one of the deficiencies and in person meeting was held a short time later in january of eighteen and then in february of two thousand five hundred to two thousand and eighteen the council made its decision one reaffirming accreditation and two opposing the penalty as of sanctions in order to to acquire and requiring that that any wages bring itself into compliance with the standards and policies of sushi this is what was required to do and and it followed both the regulation and the statute that governs due process requirements adverse actions as significant as well talk about adverse actions globally d or everyday pardons but it's also very defined term ever section under the regulation  statute as well as in the council's own standards defined is defined as the denial withdraw revocation or terminations of accreditation those four things that's what an adverse action is that's what the statute of limitations pay to that's how it's defined actually in species on standards a complete cessation of the relationship between the d c p on the one hand and the council the other if during the course of reaffirmation of radiation noncompliance actions are discover the council is obligated under its own standards to do one of two things or require that the d c p bring itself into compliance with its standards and policies this is what they did with respect to the noncompliance actions available to the  revocation of accreditation now that th the general revocation would come up only if it proves that the c p cannot bring itself into compliance within the time period prescribe which is twenty four months two years two years to be to bring themselves into compliance and then beyond that leads to the adverse action and the other three noncompliance actions vailable to the council to enforce against  when they are found to be non compliant necessarily involves a c p that's accredited or whose accreditation has been continued or reaffirmed warning sanctions or the issuance of a show cause  or i'd also point out that under accreditation of actions in the standards there are seven that are available to the council and they may be imposed at any time at any time in just that  that would include necessarily when you do c p is applying for a reaffirmation of a correlation and which as begins its challenge and due process challenge and it's praised by suggesting that it's because they were undergoing reaffirmation a because there was a finding by the council of reaffirmation of accreditation necessarily could not also find the d c p or anyway just was out of compliance or noncompliance with any of its standards or policies that's just not accurate both can occur and did anyway it just seems that you suggest that it was for two weeks that it's not compliance was discovered while it was undergoing  action so what do you think is the basis for the course of action so i do believe the judge whether that then you're right there is no private cause of action with respect to two matters u the statute or regulation or matters generally involving department of education and accreditation i do believe however though that there is common law due process that that must be observed in afforded and so course finally the policy fifty six dollars it is something that has run its course it is something that is moving to something that isn't going to come up again but the arguments that were made as to why it's how it was some violating public policy involves some sort of offense to the public good so there contravenes morals or a public interest of acquiring the reporting of the passageway to students have all considered these types of due process challenges to ensure that the members are afforded that which the legislature prescribed in twenty u s c section to ninety nine  her that there is that it's not moot because declaratory judgment could help remedy past reputational harm you know you're the way you phrased it there i'm not deficiency no authority to find that you're not meeting a standard they have not to ever so that can't that cannot be notification of such a short it just can't and that is clear from the reason for my question is the interest in fundamental fairness would be a good reason for congress to create a cause of action but it's not the fairly a basis on which we can create process from a procedural standpoint common law level making it nonexistent make it making it easy to railroad folks making it easy to do exactly what happened here and not provide another an opportunity to respond i thank you counsel we thank both counsel for their helpful arguments in this case will be submitted the next case on the challengers united states persons i