Anybody want to give me odds that SACS will fold and let Paul Quinn stay on the blessed list?

Of course if Paul Quinn's dues check to SACS bounced, then all bets are off.

My understanding of due process rights is that the requirements on SACS are pretty minimal and just limited to what is listed in the SACS policies. The only way they could get anything in a court ruling is if SACS didn't follow its own policies. On the other hand, they wouldn't be doing due diligence if they didn't file a few pieces of paperwork with the federal court.

Judging from past history, SACS will fold. SACS specializes in threatening institutions with sanctions supposedly leading to loss of accreditation should they fail to jump through reporting hoops by demonstrably expending a great deal of institutional resources on the reaccreditation effort, typically regarding specious "requirements" having little to do with institutional quality. Every now and then an institution such as Paul Quinn gets so obviously in trouble that even SACS recognizes the effect on its credibility among far healthier institutions it accredits. Given its behavior when threatened by court action in the past, SACS evidently fears that the scrutiny of the courts will reveal dirty linen. Assuming Paul Quinn can enlist a few benefactors to underwrite the legal challenge and minimally mollify the SACS minions, who after all need to justify their existence, Paul Quinn will skate by as others have done before them.