Following last week’s federal court Order temporarily staying and setting aside ED’s RISE Final Rule’s extra-statutory requirements for a “professional degree,” ED has issued new guidance for institutions. The guidance strongly indicates that ED will appeal the court’s ruling: “the Department is confident that the professional degree definition in the RISE Final Rule is lawful and will continue to defend it . . . .” While the guidance seems to offer clarity, with some degrees falling within certain six-digit CIP codes clearly designated as “professional degrees” for now, the guidance leaves some issues unanswered and raises new questions.
The Federal Court Decision to Stay and Set Aside the Final Rule’s “Professional Degree” Definition
On June 24, 2026, in a case filed by the American Association of Nurse Practitioners and others, the D.C. federal court preliminarily stayed and set aside ED’s extra-statutory requirements for a “professional degree.” In so ruling, it held that ED’s definition “imposed new requirements [e.g., doctoral level, no supervision, certain CIP code] absent from the preexisting definition adopted by Congress and turned an illustrative list of qualifying degrees into an exhaustive one.” It further held that Congress “explicit[ly] direct[ed] the Department to apply the preexisting regulatory definition [the three-part test] as the relevant test,” and “the Department has no power to revise the definition Congress codified or to add additional substantive criteria.”
The Court then denied the Plaintiffs’ request that ED be enjoined from enforcing the statutory loan caps on July 1, and noted that ED should consider “in the first instance” whether a particular degree is a “professional degree” “based on application of the proper three-criteria standard set forth in” the statute. ED represented to the Court that these determinations regarding specific degrees could be made “relatively quickly.”
ED’s New Guidance
ED did act “relatively quickly,” at least with respect to some degrees. Five days after the court ruling, ED issued its guidance. It listed several programs by CIP Code that will now be considered “professional degrees” for purposes of the higher loan limits during the Court’s temporary stay period. The program must match the six-digit CIP Code provided. That list includes anesthesiology assistant (CAA), physician associate/assistant (MSPA, PA), physical therapist (PT, DPT), audiologist (AuD), registered nurse (MSN), nurse anesthetist (DNAP), nursing practice (DNP), and various psychology degrees (Psy.D), among others. Critically, the guidance states that “programs must award the degree in parentheses to qualify for this designation,” suggesting that a rose by another name is not just as sweet in this instance. Institutions should review their programs, their CIP codes, and the names of the degrees awarded, carefully.
The guidance also included a list of programs that ED determined are not professional degrees under the three-part statutory test. These include a number of pharma-related degrees that are not Pharm.D.s., a number of psychology degrees that are not Psy.D.s, and theology degrees that are not M.Div. or M.H.L.
TC’s Take
ED has an immediate right to appeal the Court’s ruling, and must do so within 60 days from the court’s June 24 ruling. ED likely will appeal based on its language in its guidance. It may also seek a stay of the stay from the appellate court. Even if ED does not appeal, the district court’s ruling is a preliminary ruling that could also be overturned at the summary judgment stage.
The list of professional degrees in the guidance was not all-inclusive. Many degrees were not addressed at all. Institutions with programs that were not mentioned should consider a letter to ED seeking its determination under the three-part statutory test as to whether a program meets the “professional degree” definition under that test. Even if ED previously determined in the preamble to the Final Rule that a degree was not a professional degree, and even if it determined the three-part test was not met at that time, the institution should seek clarification from the Department because so often, ED used at least some now unlawful extra-statutory requirements in making that “not a professional degree” determination. If ED now determines, using the statutory three-part test, that an institution’s program is not a “professional degree,” and the institution believes that it is, it should consider filing suit against the Department.
Moreover, note that the guidance states that its purpose is “to identify the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) Codes that are designated as professional degree programs,” and only designates programs with specific six-digit CIP codes as “professional degrees.” The guidance, for example, identifies only one MSN CIP Code, and an institution may have several MSN degrees that have different CIP codes. Institutions may want to seek clarification from ED as to whether those additional programs qualify, when the degree is the same, but the CIP code is different.
If the appellate court enters a stay, or if the appellate court disagrees with the district court and rules in favor of the Department’s Final Rule, some students may begin their programs qualifying for the professional degree higher loan limits, only to find out midstream that they do not. Critically, the guidance states that “[d]uring the pendency of the ongoing litigation, institutions may wish to consider, for programs now temporarily classified as awarding professional degrees pursuant to the Court’s order, limiting loan amounts to the graduate-level caps to mitigate potential disruption to student borrowers resulting from changes in program classification that may rise from the ongoing litigation.” In any event, should an institution move forward with the programs classified as professional degrees at the higher loan limits, it should provide a disclosure to the student regarding the preliminary nature of the ruling and the fact that it could change.
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held a hearing today in a separate case, filed by nursing and other associations, challenging EDs final “professional degree” portion of the RISE rule. The Judge made it clear that she agreed with the decision in the D.C. case. Plaintiffs argued that the CIP codes in the guidance do not include many of the nursing MSN, DNP, and DNAP degrees that have different CIP codes. The government responded that it is actively considering possible additions to the approved “professional degree” list but was not going to make any representations regarding specific additional CIP codes at this time. The Court asked for supplemental briefing and asked the parties to confer on the issues.
If your institution needs assistance with contacting ED for clarification as to your specific programs, or exploring its options for relief regarding ED’s determination of your program’s “professional degree” status, or drafting a disclosure for students, please do not hesitate to give us a call. We are currently handling these issues for a number of clients.
