BY Jordan T. Vogel, Esq. and Michael R. Alexander, Esq., Brown & Fortunato, P.C.
In a recent development, a federal district court granted a request to preliminarily set aside and stay implementation of the Department of Education’s new definition of “professional degree.” As you may recall, the Department of Education recently defined the term “professional degree” to exclude certain health care fields, including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse midwives, certified registered nurse anesthetists, physician assistants, and several allied health professions. The practical impact of the rule was significant: students pursuing these degrees would become subject to substantially lower federal student loan borrowing limits, potentially discouraging entry into these professions and exacerbating existing healthcare workforce shortages over time.
To avoid this potential fate, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners and the PA Education Association, along with other healthcare and educational organizations, filed suit against the Department of Education seeking to set aside the agency’s revised definition. The plaintiffs argued that the Department exceeded its statutory authority by adopting a definition that was substantially narrower than the one Congress incorporated into the governing legislation.
The dispute arose in connection with changes to the federal graduate student loan system. Although Congress established different borrowing limits for graduate and professional students, it incorporated an existing regulatory framework for determining what constitutes a “professional degree.” The Department subsequently issued a rule that limited the designation to a relatively small group of fields and imposed additional requirements not expressly found in the statute, including criteria related to the level of education required and the degree of professional independence associated with the occupation. Under that framework, many advanced nursing and allied health programs no longer qualified as professional degrees.
In granting preliminary relief, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The court found that Congress had adopted the preexisting regulatory definition of “professional degree” and that the Department likely lacked authority to narrow that definition through subsequent rulemaking. The court further expressed concern that the agency’s interpretation was inconsistent with congressional intent and likely contrary to law.
Importantly, the court’s ruling does not eliminate the new federal student loan caps enacted by Congress. Rather, it temporarily prevents the Department from enforcing its more restrictive definition of which students qualify for the higher borrowing limits available to professional degree programs. As a result, students enrolled in many healthcare-related graduate programs may continue to qualify for increased federal borrowing capacity while the litigation proceeds.
The decision represents a significant, albeit preliminary, victory for healthcare educators and professional organizations. Throughout the rulemaking process, critics argued that limiting borrowing access for advanced practice nursing and allied health students would have unintended consequences for patient care, particularly at a time when many communities continue to experience shortages of qualified healthcare professionals. Reduced access to educational financing could discourage prospective students from entering fields that already struggle to meet growing demand.
From a broader policy perspective, the litigation reflects an increasingly familiar tension between administrative agencies and the courts regarding the scope of agency authority. While federal agencies possess considerable discretion in implementing congressional directives, courts have shown greater willingness in recent years to scrutinize agency actions that appear to expand or in this case narrow the reach of statutory provisions beyond what Congress expressly authorized.
For healthcare providers, educators, and students, the immediate takeaway is that the status quo largely remains in place for now. The Department of Education has indicated that it intends to continue defending the rule, and the case will proceed on the merits. Consequently, the ultimate definition of “professional degree” for federal student loan purposes remains unsettled.
Nevertheless, the court’s decision provides temporary relief for thousands of students pursuing advanced healthcare degrees and helps preserve access to educational financing at a time when the nation’s healthcare system can ill afford additional barriers to workforce development. Given the ongoing demand for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, advanced practice nurses, and other healthcare professionals, the final outcome of this litigation will likely have ramifications extending far beyond student loan policy and into the future composition of the healthcare workforce itself.