- ED’s final loan rule narrows “professional degree” status, leaving many NP and PA students at lower graduate borrowing limits after Grad PLUS is eliminated.
- The best argument against ED is statutory: Congress incorporated the older, broader professional-degree definition, which arguably already covered licensure-linked PA/NP programs.
- ED’s defense is that “professional” must remain a narrow category like MD/JD/DDS, not all graduate clinical credentials.
- The PA lawsuit has a serious but uncertain APA claim.
- Congress could fix the issue cleanly by expressly including accredited NP/APRN and PA programs as professional degrees for loan-limit purposes, ideally through a narrow health-workforce amendment.
Bottom line
As public policy, your instinct is strong: NPs and PAs are exactly the kind of high-social-value workforce Congress should want to expand, especially in primary care, rural care, behavioral health-adjacent care, and underserved settings. But the litigation is not mainly about whether that is good policy. It is about whether the Department of Education had statutory room to narrow “professional degree” so sharply after Congress cross-referenced the pre-existing 34 CFR § 668.2 definition.
My read: the challengers have a real, non-frivolous APA/statutory argument, especially on the claim that the Department converted an “include but are not limited to” professional-degree definition into a constrained doctoral/CIP-code/supervision framework. But success is not assured, because the Department wrote the rule with a litigation defense in mind: it argues that the old list was not meaningless, that “professional” must be narrower than “graduate,” and that Congress intended higher caps only for a bounded class of traditional professional degrees.
What changed
The 2025 statute eliminated uncapped Grad PLUS borrowing and created different caps: ordinary graduate students are left at the lower graduate limit, while “professional students” receive the higher loan limits. The final rule implements that structure and makes the professional-student definition pivotal. The Department says the rule will reduce federal loan exposure and may reduce tuition pressure, while still simplifying repayment and preserving access within capped limits.
The practical problem is obvious: NP, PA, nursing, counseling, therapy, and similar clinical programs are expensive, full-time, licensure-linked, and workforce-critical, but many are not treated like JD/MD/DDS/PharmD-style “professional degrees” under the rule.
Arguments for treating NPs and PAs like JD/MD-level professional degrees
The strongest arguments were these:
First, the [new] statutory text incorporated the existing regulatory definition, and that older definition was broad. It described a professional degree as one that completes the academic requirements for beginning practice in a profession, requires professional skill beyond a bachelor’s degree, and generally requires licensure. It then listed examples such as medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, law, theology, optometry, podiatry, and chiropractic, but the list was expressly illustrative rather than exhaustive. The PA complaint emphasizes that Congress cross-referenced that existing definition “as in effect” on enactment, not a new narrower one later created by the Department.
Second, PAs and NPs are not merely academic graduate students in the ordinary sense. Their programs are structured, accredited, clinically sequenced, licensure-linked, and designed to produce practitioners who can begin regulated clinical practice. The Department itself summarized commenters’ PA argument as: PA education is a graduate-entry, licensure-leading pathway with didactic and clinical education, supervised rotations, national credentialing, and state licensure through an accredited program and the PANCE.
Third, supervision is a weak dividing line. Commenters argued that many included professions also have supervised or collaborative practice phases: physicians train in residencies, pharmacists may practice within defined protocols, psychologists often have supervised post-degree hours, and scope-of-practice rules vary by state. For PAs and NPs, “collaboration” or “supervision” does not mean the education is non-professional; it is often just the regulatory structure of the profession.
Fourth, the workforce argument is powerful. The complaint says 76% of PA student borrowers used Grad PLUS in academic year 2023–24, and PA tuition alone can exceed the new graduate cap before living expenses are considered. It argues that losing access to higher federal limits will push students to private loans or deter them entirely, injuring students, PA programs, and the healthcare system. Similar concerns are reflected in broader challenges by states and healthcare groups, which argue that excluding nursing, PA, physical therapy, and similar fields will worsen provider shortages. (Reuters)
Arguments against treating NPs and PAs like JD/MD-level professional degrees
The Department’s case is not absurd; it has a coherent internal logic.
Its core point is that Congress created two categories—graduate and professional—and the professional category must be narrower. If every graduate licensure program were treated as “professional,” the professional cap would swallow much of the graduate category. The Department therefore leaned on statutory-construction tools: the old list of examples must have legal meaning, and the examples cluster around traditional, often doctoral-level, independently licensed professions.
Second, the Department argues that a master’s-level entry credential, national exam, or licensure structure is not enough. Otherwise, many programs—nursing, counseling, social work, education, architecture, therapy fields—could all claim the higher cap. The Department wanted a bounded, administrable rule rather than a broad contemporary licensure-based rule.
Third, for nursing and PAs specifically, the Department put weight on professional supervision or non-independent practice. For nursing, it said graduate nursing programs may meet parts of the operative test but do not satisfy the “contextual requirements” drawn from the listed professional degrees; for PAs, it said collaboration/supervision and scope-of-practice variation help explain why PA pathways do not fit the incorporated professional-degree framework.
Fourth, fiscally, the Department’s policy objective is to curb excessive federal graduate lending and restrain tuition inflation. It says the final rule provides benefits including simplified repayment, lower taxpayer costs, and potentially lower tuition costs.
The lawsuit
The PA Education Association and American Academy of Physician Associates filed suit in D.C. federal court, captioned PA Education Association and American Academy of Physician Associates v. U.S. Department of Education and Secretary Linda McMahon, case no. 1:26-cv-01941, challenging the final rule under the APA. The complaint asks the court to declare the professional-degree definition unlawful, vacate it, and declare PA degrees eligible for the higher professional-student loan limits. AAPA has also publicly described the suit as a challenge to the rule that would cap PA student borrowing at $20,500 annually rather than allowing access to the higher professional-student limit. (AAPA)
There is also a broader state-led challenge. Reuters reports that Democratic-led states and D.C., along with the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, challenged the loan-cap rule in Maryland, arguing that the Department unlawfully narrowed Congress’s professional-degree definition and excluded fields such as nursing, PAs, and physical therapy. (Reuters)
Which argument came closest to winning in rulemaking?
The argument that came closest was not simply “we need more NPs and PAs.” That was morally and politically strong, but agencies can answer workforce arguments by saying, “Congress capped loans; take it up with Congress.”
The strongest rulemaking argument was the textual/incorporation argument:
Congress incorporated the existing § 668.2 professional-degree definition. That definition was broad, functional, and non-exhaustive. The Department cannot use rulemaking to add doctoral-level, six-year, CIP-code, and independent-practice requirements that Congress did not include.
That is the argument with the most legal bite. The Department took it seriously enough to spend substantial space defending its statutory-construction theory: noscitur a sociis, anti-surplusage, the need to distinguish “graduate” from “professional,” and the claim that the enumerated examples must constrain the definition.
The second-best argument was inconsistency/arbitrariness: included professions also involve supervised training, state-by-state variation, or staged independence, so using supervision to exclude PAs/NPs may be arbitrary or selectively applied. The complaint directly attacks the Department for relying on a supervision-related requirement that plaintiffs say is neither in the statute nor even cleanly in the final regulatory test.
Likelihood of success
My estimate: moderate chance of success on at least partial relief; lower chance of getting everything plaintiffs want.
Why plaintiffs may win: after Loper Bright, courts are less likely to defer automatically to an agency’s interpretation of ambiguous statutory text. If the judge sees the statute as freezing the old § 668.2 definition “as in effect” on July 4, 2025, the Department’s new doctoral/CIP-code/supervision gloss may look like an unauthorized narrowing. The complaint’s best fact is that the old definition said examples “include but are not limited to,” and the new rule functionally turns the list into a closed or nearly closed set.
Why the Department may survive: the Department can argue that the old definition was never self-executing for every modern licensure program, that Congress created a special higher-cost category, and that the agency had to operationalize the graduate/professional distinction. Its statutory-construction argument is lawyerly and not frivolous: the examples must mean something, and the agency says it identified their shared traits rather than adding a wholly new test.
Most likely judicial outcomes, in my view:
Best for plaintiffs: court vacates the professional-degree definition or its application to PAs, forcing ED to reopen or treat PAs as professional students.
Middle outcome: court finds some reasoning arbitrary—especially supervision/CIP-code rigidity—but remands without ordering immediate inclusion.
Best for ED: court upholds the rule as a reasonable implementation of a statute that deliberately limits higher caps.
For PAs, the lawsuit looks stronger than a generic policy challenge because the complaint is tightly framed around statutory incorporation and the old definition. For NPs, the policy case may be equally strong or stronger, but legally it may be more complex because nursing pathways vary more—MSN, DNP, DNAP, NP specialties, CRNA, midwifery—and ED can exploit that variation. Still, the Department’s own concession that some nursing programs may satisfy the three-part operative test gives NP/nursing challengers a useful foothold.
My practical prediction: this is not a sure loser for the plaintiffs; it is a serious APA case. I would put the chance of some meaningful relief in the 35–50% range, and the chance of a clean court order saying “PAs are professional students, full stop” somewhat lower. The litigation risk for ED is real because the agency’s policy instincts—narrow the category, save money, reduce lending—may have outrun the statutory cross-reference Congress actually wrote.
###
Congressional Fix?
###
A Congressional fix is actually much cleaner than the lawsuit.
The lawsuit says: “ED misread what Congress already enacted.” A Congressional fix would say: “Whatever ED thinks, Congress now expressly includes these programs.”
The cleanest fix
Congress would amend the Higher Education Act loan-limit provision to say that, for purposes of the higher professional student Direct Unsubsidized Loan limits, “professional degree” includes specified NP/PA programs.
Something like:
For purposes of section 455(a)(4)(C), the term “professional student” includes a student enrolled in a post-baccalaureate degree program accredited by a recognized accrediting agency that prepares the student for initial or advanced licensure, certification, or practice as a nurse practitioner, nurse anesthetist, nurse midwife, clinical nurse specialist, or physician assistant/associate.
That kind of language would directly override ED’s current exclusion. ED’s final rule excluded nursing partly because it read the old professional-degree list through contextual limitations and supervision/independent-practice concepts, and it excluded PA programs partly because PAs often practice under collaboration or supervision rules. A statutory fix should therefore avoid letting ED re-litigate independence, doctoral status, CIP-code grouping, or whether the profession resembles MD/JD/DDS enough.
Narrow NP/PA-only version
The narrowest version would add only PA and advanced practice nursing programs:
Professional degree. — For purposes of this paragraph, the term “professional degree” includes a post-baccalaureate degree awarded by an accredited program that prepares a student for licensure, certification, or authorization to practice as a physician assistant/associate or advanced practice registered nurse, including nurse practitioner, certified registered nurse anesthetist, certified nurse-midwife, or clinical nurse specialist.
This would be the best version politically if the goal is maximum chance of passage. It lets Congress say: “We are not reopening Grad PLUS, not restoring unlimited borrowing, not adding every master’s program. We are fixing a targeted health workforce problem.”
There is already a nursing version of this strategy. AACN says the Nursing is a Professional Degree Act, identified as S.4568/H.R.8691, would include nursing programs in the statutory definition of professional degrees so post-baccalaureate nursing students can access the higher loan limits. (VoterVoice) Business Insider reports that Senators Jeff Merkley and Roger Wicker led a bipartisan bill to include nursing degrees in ED’s professional-degree designation, with a similar House bill. (Business Insider)
Better combined fix: “Health Workforce Professional Degree Act”
For NP/PA together, I would not make it a nursing-only bill. I would draft it as a health workforce correction:
Health workforce professional degree inclusion. — Notwithstanding any regulation or interpretation of the Secretary, a student enrolled in an accredited post-baccalaureate program leading to eligibility for licensure, certification, or state authorization as an advanced practice registered nurse or physician assistant/associate shall be treated as a professional student for purposes of Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan annual and aggregate limits.
The phrase “notwithstanding any regulation or interpretation of the Secretary” matters. It prevents ED from saying, “Yes, Congress added them, but we still apply our doctoral-level, six-year, CIP-code, or independence criteria.”
The PA lawsuit complains that ED added requirements not in the statute: generally doctoral level, six academic years, and a four-digit CIP-code relationship to the listed fields; it also attacks ED’s use of supervision/collaboration as a reason to exclude PAs. A statutory fix should expressly close each of those escape hatches.
Broader version: functional professional-degree test
A broader and more elegant fix would define professional degree functionally:
A professional degree includes any post-baccalaureate degree program that:
is accredited by a federally recognized or nationally recognized specialized accreditor;
prepares students for entry into a licensed, certified, or state-regulated profession;
requires supervised clinical, field, or professional practice education; and
leads to eligibility for a national certification, board examination, state licensure, or comparable professional authorization.
This would help PAs, NPs, nurse anesthetists, nurse midwives, clinical psychology, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, audiology, counseling, social work, public health professions, and perhaps others.
But this broader approach is politically riskier. It would reopen the whole “what counts as professional?” battle. ED’s whole policy premise is that Congress intended higher limits for a “narrow group of programs,” not a large universe of graduate licensure programs. If the fix becomes too broad, deficit hawks and education-cost hawks will say it recreates Grad PLUS by another route.
The best legislative design
The best practical bill would have four parts.
First, it should name the covered professions: PA, NP, CRNA, nurse midwife, clinical nurse specialist. Names beat standards. Standards invite ED interpretation.
Second, it should cover both master’s and doctoral pathways. ED’s final rule disadvantaged PA programs because the PA entry degree is generally master’s-level, not doctoral. For nursing, the fix must cover MSN, DNP, DNAP, and relevant post-baccalaureate pathways, or it will create weird winners and losers.
Third, it should be loan-limit-specific. Congress does not need to declare for all federal law that PAs and NPs are equivalent to MDs or JDs. It only needs to say they count as professional students for Direct Loan annual and aggregate limits. That makes the bill less threatening.
Fourth, it should include a workforce finding, not because findings control everything, but because they help defend the policy:
Congress finds that advanced practice nurses and physician assistants/associates are essential to maintaining access to primary care, specialty care, surgical care, rural care, and care in medically underserved communities, and that federal student loan policy should not deter qualified students from entering these professions.
Political odds
A narrow NP/PA fix has a plausible path because it can be framed as pro-healthcare workforce, pro-rural access, pro-veterans/military medicine, pro-hospital staffing, and not a general student-loan expansion. The fact that the nursing fix already has bipartisan sponsorship is important. (Business Insider) Earlier bipartisan concern was also substantial: Senator Merkley’s office reported that more than 150 lawmakers urged ED not to make changes that would burden post-baccalaureate nursing degrees. (Merkley)
The PA-specific case should be paired with nursing, not treated as an orphan. The PA complaint says 76% of PA student borrowers used Grad PLUS in 2023–24, and PA tuition can exceed $68,000 in-state, $108,000 out-of-state, and $113,000 at private institutions before living expenses. That is the kind of concrete evidence members of Congress can understand.
My read
The most viable fix is not “restore Grad PLUS” and not “make all allied health professional.” The winning formulation is:
Treat accredited PA and advanced practice nursing programs as professional-degree programs for federal loan-limit purposes, while leaving the general graduate-loan cap structure intact.
That gives Republicans a cost-control story, Democrats an access/equity story, rural members a workforce story, hospitals and universities a pipeline story, and the professions a clean statutory override of ED’s rule.
