“The thing worse than rebellion is the thing that causes rebellion.”[1]
The Department of Education’s Final RISE Rule (the “Rule”)[2] narrowing the definition of “professional degree” under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“OB3”) is facing immediate legal challenges on two fronts—and higher education institutions should be watching closely. The Rule, published May 1, 2026 and set to take effect July 1, 2026, would exclude numerous healthcare and other professional programs—including nurse practitioners, physical therapists, physician assistants, educators, public health professionals, and marriage and family therapists—from the “professional degree” definition and thus from OB3’s higher federal student loan limits for students seeking such degrees. The Rule has caused an uproar from healthcare professions nationwide, particularly in the nursing field. Two lawsuits filed in May 2026 allege the Department exceeded its statutory authority, and one has already moved for emergency relief to block the Rule before it takes effect.
The Lawsuits
Both cases argue that the Department unlawfully rewrote the OB3 statutory definition, which requires only three things: that a degree (1) signify completion of the academic requirements for beginning practice in a given profession, (2) signify a level of professional skill beyond a bachelor’s degree, and (3) generally require professional licensure. The Department’s Rule layers on additional requirements not found in that definition—including that the degree be “generally at the doctoral level,” require at least six academic years of postsecondary education, require licensure specifically “to begin practice,” and fall within a four-digit CIP code in the same intermediate group as the illustrative list of degrees referenced in the statute. By doing so, the plaintiffs argue, the Department converted Congress’s illustrative list—which states that professional degrees “include but are not limited to” ten enumerated fields—into an exclusive one.
In the first-filed lawsuit, twenty-five states plus D.C. (the “Plaintiff States”) challenged the Rule’s “professional degree” definition and its restrictions on the statutory grandfathering provision. State of Maryland, et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Education, No. 1:26-cv-01957 (D. Md.). Notably, the Plaintiff States did not seek a preliminary injunction with their complaint, but rather sought permanent relief in the form of vacatur of the challenged portions of the Rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706, and a permanent injunction, neither of which is likely to happen before the July 1, 2026 effective date. For further analysis of this first lawsuit, see Twenty-Five States Plus D.C. ‘RISE’ Up in Lawsuit Against the Department of Education Over New Rule’s ‘Professional Degree’ Definition | Thompson Coburn LLP.
Two days after the first suit’s filing, six professional associations—the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP), the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (NAPNAP), the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH), the National Education Association (NEA), and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT) (the “Association Plaintiffs”)—filed their own challenge. American Association of Nurse Practitioners, et al. v. McMahon, No. 1:26-cv-01780 (D.D.C.). The AANP, the AACN, and the ASPPH allege that they have institution members. The Association Plaintiffs challenge the Department’s Rule not only as contrary to law but also as arbitrary and capricious. They also make a challenge that the first lawsuit did not make – they argue that the Department’s actions violate the Master Calendar Requirement, 20 U.S.C. § 1089(c)(1), because the Rule was not published in final form by November 1, 2025.
The second-filed case is moving fast. It clearly is seeking to stop the Rule from becoming effective July 1, 2026: the Association Plaintiffs simultaneously filed a motion for a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 705 and a preliminary injunction and have requested that the court hold a hearing within twenty-one days. The Court is setting up a pre-July 1, 2026 ruling: it has ordered the government to file its response to the motion for preliminary injunction by June 3, 2026, and the Association Plaintiffs to file their reply in support of such motion by June 10, 2026.
What is at Stake for Institutions
Under the new loan caps established by OB3, graduate students are limited to $20,500 annually ($100,000 aggregate), while professional students may borrow up to $50,000 annually ($200,000 aggregate). The Rule determines which programs fall on which side of that line—and the plaintiffs argue the Department drew it far too narrowly. The gap between those two caps is enormous for programs with costs far exceeding $20,500 a year. The institutional consequences may be significant. Students who cannot afford to finance their education will not enroll. Reduced enrollment will strain institutional budgets and impair schools’ ability to sustain academic programs, faculty hiring, clinical placements, and student support services. Some institutions face reduced program capacity, delayed expansion efforts, suspension of specialty tracks, or even program closure.
TC’s Take
This second-filed lawsuit raises the stakes, given that it is expressly seeking to halt the Rule’s July 1, 2026 effective date with rocket docket speed. TC will be closely monitoring this docket for updates.
The Honorable Beryl E. Howell, a 2010 Obama appointee, has been assigned to the Association Plaintiffs’ case. As TC noted with the first lawsuit, the Association Plaintiffs have a good argument that the Rule overreaches by imposing additional requirements for a “professional degree” that are not included in OB3, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court’s blockbuster decision in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), which held that courts should not defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute, and that if an agency’s interpretation is not the best interpretation, it is not permissible. The Association Plaintiffs thus have a good but not certain chance of staying and/or enjoining the challenged portions of the Rule and its application prior to the July 1 effective date, particularly as to their own members and their own degrees.
Although the Association Plaintiffs are broadly seeking to stay the Department’s definition of “professional degree” in the Rule, and to enjoin the Department from enforcing the statutory caps on loan availability applicable to “graduate” and “professional” degrees “pending the promulgation of a lawful replacement rule,” the Court may choose not to enter such a broad ruling. First, given last year’s Trump v. CASA decision,[3] which held that universal or “nationwide” injunctions are unlawful, the Court may decide to grant relief only to the Association Plaintiffs’ members. Second, the Department included a severance provision in the Rule, stating that if “a court disagrees with the Department’s classification of a particular degree or degrees, the Department intends for its classification of all other degrees to survive and remain in effect.”[4] Thus, the Court might choose to stay or enjoin the Rule only as to the specific nursing, public health, education, and marriage and family therapy degrees at issue in the second lawsuit. One way for non-Association Plaintiffs’ members to benefit from any injunction or stay is to intervene or for an association representing them to intervene as plaintiffs, and request that any relief awarded to the Association Plaintiffs also be extended to them.
Even if the District Court stays and/or enjoins the Rule and its application exactly as the Association Plaintiffs request, the government likely has an immediate right to appeal such ruling,[5] and may seek a stay of the ruling from the D.C. Circuit. These two cases could create an eventual circuit split, creating a path for the Supreme Court to resolve the issues.
Given the number of programs affected by the Rule, this litigation will be two of the most significant higher education cases of the year. Please let us know if your institution has specific questions about how it may be affected or possible intervention.
[1] Frederick Douglass, Reconstruction, Atlantic (Dec. 1866), reprinted in Atlantic (Dec. 2023), https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/12/frederick-douglass-atlantic-reconstruction-essay/675485/.
[2] U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Final Rule, Reimagining and Improving Student Education, 91 Fed. Reg. 23,768 (May 1, 2026).
[3] 606 U.S. 831 (2025).
[4] 91 Fed. Reg. 23,768, 23,771.
[5] See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (granting immediate right to appeal from an injunction); Make the Road New York v. Noem, 2025 WL 3563313, at *8 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 22, 2025) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and its immediate right to an appeal likely applies to a stay entered under 5 U.S.C. § 705).
