Nursing Graduates Blocked From NCLEX as Nightingale College Sues California Board

Nightingale College filed a lawsuit against the California Board of Registered Nursing (BRN) on August 24, asking a judge to stop the board from enforcing licensing standards the college says were never lawfully adopted. The board says 873 Nightingale graduates are waiting on held applications, and the college’s complaint says about 536 of its 561 spring graduates still cannot take the NCLEX-RN months after finishing school, while job offers slip away.

The suit, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, names the BRN and its executive officer, Loretta Melby. Nightingale also asked for an emergency order forcing the board to process the applications; the court said no on August 28 but left the college a path to try again.

Want to see more Nurse.org articles in your Google results? Add us as a preferred source.

California treats nursing programs differently depending on where they are based. Schools located in California are approved by the BRN and must meet state curriculum rules, including minimum direct patient care hours. Graduates of out-of-state schools apply individually, and the board decides whether their education is equivalent to what California requires of its own programs. Nightingale is on that second track: it is headquartered in Utah, its BSN program is accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education, and many of its students live in California and study remotely. The fight is over which rules the board can use when judging their education.

The complaint challenges two standards in particular:

• A 500-hour direct patient care minimum. The figure comes from a 2022 law written for California’s own approved schools. Nightingale argues the board cannot apply it to out-of-state graduates because it was never adopted as a rule for them, and notes the board left the figure out when it updated its own curriculum regulation in 2024.
• An undefined “concurrency” rule. Board regulations say theory and clinical practice must be concurrent in five core areas (med-surg, pediatrics, OB, psychiatric/mental health, and geriatrics) but never define the word. The complaint says the board has refused to explain what would satisfy it, while staff told waiting graduates the review of their coursework could take “weeks, months, or years.”

In legal terms, the suit calls both standards “underground regulations,” rules an agency enforces without going through California’s formal rulemaking process. It also says the board broke the state’s open-meetings law at committee meetings on July 29 and August 11. Nightingale graduates spoke during public comment about their stalled applications, and the board’s executive officer and counsel responded by stating on the record that graduates would have to meet the two challenged standards to test and become licensed, even though the topic was not on either agenda.

History is Nightingale’s core argument. According to its complaint, the board approved 1,961 of its graduates for California licensure over the years leading up to May 2026, including 1,561 in the roughly two years after the board’s own updated curriculum rule took effect in July 2024. Then, the complaint says, approvals stopped without any change in the law. CEO Mikhail Shneyder said graduates are being “held hostage by the BRN through no fault of their own.”

The complaint spells out what the wait is costing them: about 70 graduates have lost job offers, 86 have been told rescission is imminent, and 95 hold offers that depend on getting cleared to test. One graduate told a board committee he had an emergency room nursing job set to start August 24 that he could not begin. Another 612 students graduated on August 21 into the same wait.

The BRN’s answer is that protecting the public comes first. Board spokesman Vincent Miranda said this summer that the board had “identified some areas requiring further review” and could not approve applications from Nightingale graduates in the interim. In its court filing the board argued the public would be harmed if “unqualified nursing applicants” received licenses.

On the specifics, the state argues the equivalency law itself requires the 500 hours: if California’s own schools must provide them, out-of-state graduates must show the equivalent. It says concurrent simply carries its everyday meaning, theory and related clinical practice in the same academic term, and said Nightingale’s claimed confusion “did not seem genuine.” It also rejects the open-meetings claim, saying comments by staff are not actions taken by the board itself.

Much of the dispute comes down to how Nightingale students get their clinical hours. The board has told students that virtual reality simulation time cannot count toward the 500 direct patient care hours, and that it expects at least 30 hours in each core clinical area. Some graduates have said their in-person placements were concentrated in skilled nursing facilities rather than spread across specialties.

The fight has also turned ugly online. After graduates who raised concerns about the college in ABC 10News San Diego‘s reporting received threats and harassment, the board issued a public warning that unprofessional conduct can be grounds for denying or restricting a license.

Where the Case Stands

Nightingale’s request for a temporary restraining order, an emergency order that would have forced the board to process the held applications immediately, was denied on August 28 in a written ruling issued without a hearing. Judge Richard K. Sueyoshi found no emergency justified skipping the normal motion process: the board’s hold began in May 2026, and the harms the college described had already happened.

The denial does not decide who is right, and it does not change how the board is handling applications. Nightingale can still seek a preliminary injunction through a regular motion, and the judge noted it can ask for an expedited hearing. The only date on the calendar now is a routine scheduling conference on July 21, 2027, but a preliminary injunction motion could bring the case back before the judge much sooner.

>>Listen to The Latest Nurse News Podcast

For Nightingale graduates waiting on authorization to test in California (the board approval that lets a graduate schedule the NCLEX):

• Monitor your BreEZe account for application status changes rather than relying on social media reports.
• Continue NCLEX preparation. Graduates who receive authorization may have limited lead time before testing. Nurse.org’s NCLEX resources can help you stay exam-ready. 
• Rely on verified communications from Nightingale and the BRN rather than rumors in student groups. Nightingale posts case updates on its California update page.
• Document employment impacts. Keep records of rescinded or delayed offers and hold dates; a paper trail helps when employers ask about the gap.

The outcome could shape how state boards evaluate graduates of distance-learning nursing programs. California faces one of the nation’s most severe nursing shortages, and tension over clinical training requirements for online and out-of-state programs has been building. A ruling on whether the BRN’s standards were lawfully adopted would echo well beyond one college.

None of the legal machinery changes the graduates’ day-to-day reality: degrees finished, applications filed, jobs on hold, and no test date on the calendar. Unless the board changes course or a judge orders otherwise, the spring graduates who cannot test, and the 612 August graduates now behind them in line, are left with the one thing nursing school never prepared them for: waiting.

🤔 Should clinical simulation hours count toward direct patient care requirements for licensure? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Correction: An earlier version gave the committee meeting date as July 30, as stated in Nightingale’s complaint; the board’s posted agenda shows the meeting was July 29.