Constitutional Violations in New York's License Revocation Actions Against JPU Graduates

The most egregious constitutional violation involves the complete absence of procedural due process protections. Professional licenses constitute property interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause[4][5]. The Supreme Court established in Board of Regents v. Roth that once a property interest is recognized, the government cannot deprive individuals of that interest without adequate procedural safeguards[4][6].

New York's summary revocation process violates every established due process requirement. The Supreme Court in Goldberg v. Kelly mandated that government cannot terminate benefits without pre-termination hearings when essential interests are at stake[7][8]. Similarly, in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, the Court held that property interests cannot be terminated without pre-deprivation process or immediate post-deprivation hearings[9].

The Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test requires courts to weigh three factors: the private interest at stake, the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the government's interest[10]. Here, JPU graduates face loss of their professional livelihood, the risk of error is extremely high given the summary nature of the process, and New York has failed to demonstrate any compelling governmental interest that would justify bypassing constitutional protections[10].

New York's selective enforcement against JPU graduates while allowing other non-JRCERT accredited programs to operate normally constitutes a clear Equal Protection Clause violation[11][12]. The Equal Protection Clause mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law[11].

Multiple New York radiologic technology programs operate without JRCERT accreditation and continue to receive full state licensing approval, including community colleges with regional accreditation and hospital-based programs[13][14]. This discriminatory treatment violates equal protection principles and suggests impermissible targeting based on JPU's out-of-state, for-profit status[13][15].

Selective enforcement claims arise when laws are enforced in a discriminatory manner, and courts have consistently held that such practices violate constitutional protections[14]. The pattern of enforcement reveals arbitrary government action that fails even rational basis review[16][17].

Professional licenses represent substantial property interests that cannot be arbitrarily taken without compensation or adequate justification[18][19]. The Supreme Court in Board of Regents v. Roth established that property interests derive from independent sources such as state law, and once created, these interests receive constitutional protection[4][5].

JPU graduates invested significant time, money, and effort to obtain their education, pass national certification exams, and secure professional licenses[20]. These licenses allow them to pursue their chosen careers and represent legitimate claims of entitlement protected by due process[5]. New York's retroactive revocation destroys these property rights without constitutional justification[18][21].

The doctrine of vested rights protects individuals who have acted in good faith reliance on existing legal standards[19][21]. JPU graduates completed their education and obtained licensure when the school's accreditation was accepted by New York, creating legitimate expectations that cannot be arbitrarily destroyed[22][23].

The Fourteenth Amendment protects liberty interests in pursuing lawful occupations[24][25]. The Supreme Court has recognized that among the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause are individuals' choices to follow particular career paths or professions[25][26].

New York's actions effectively bar JPU graduates from practicing their chosen profession based on retroactively applied standards[24]. This constitutes an arbitrary barrier to occupational practice that violates substantive due process protections for occupational liberty[24][25]. Courts have increasingly recognized that mere economic protectionism favoring incumbents does not constitute a rational basis for occupational regulations[27][24].

While the Ex Post Facto Clauses primarily apply to criminal laws, the principles underlying these protections extend to civil regulations that impose retroactive legal consequences[28][29]. New York's sudden reinterpretation of acceptable accreditation standards and retroactive application to existing licenses violates fundamental fairness principles embedded in constitutional law[30][31].

The Supreme Court has explained that people must have notice of the legal consequences of their actions at the time they act[31]. JPU graduates who obtained licenses when the school's accreditation was accepted cannot be retroactively punished for relying on existing legal standards[28][32]. The prohibition against retroactive legal consequences protects individuals from arbitrary government action that changes the rules after conduct has occurred[29][33].

New York's actions violate basic administrative law principles governing agency decision-making. Administrative agencies must follow proper procedures and cannot act in an arbitrary or capricious manner[16][17]. The "clerical error" justification appears designed to circumvent administrative law requirements rather than address legitimate regulatory concerns[34][35].

State statutes governing professional license revocation establish specific grounds and procedures that must be followed[36][37]. New York Public Health Law Section 3510 specifies particular grounds for license revocation, and notably, subsequent changes in accreditation interpretation are not listed as permissible grounds[2][38]. The Department of Health's failure to follow statutory procedures violates both state administrative law and federal constitutional protections[39][35].

The arbitrary and capricious standard requires that agency decisions be supported by evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate[16]. New York's selective targeting of JPU while protecting similarly situated programs demonstrates the baseless and despotic character of arbitrary administrative action[17].

Federal courts have consistently protected professional licensees from arbitrary government action. In Barry v. Barchi, the Supreme Court held that while emergency license suspensions may be permissible in narrow circumstances, they must be followed by prompt post-suspension hearings[34][40]. New York's actions lack even this minimal protection.

The constitutional framework established in cases like Goldberg v. Kelly, Mathews v. Eldridge, and Cleveland Board v. Loudermill provides powerful precedents for challenging New York's license revocation process[7][10][9]. These decisions establish that government cannot deprive individuals of property interests without adequate procedural protections[8][39].