Parties Seek Extension in Professional Student Definition Lawsuit
By Megan Walter, Senior Policy Analyst
The parties in the nurse practitioner (NP) and physician associate (PA) groups' lawsuit against ED have jointly asked the court for a one-week extension to propose a hearing schedule, as they continue to sort out how the Department of Education’s (ED) revised professional degree Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code guidance applies to advanced nursing degrees.
As a reminder, on June 24, Judge Beryl Howell granted the plaintiffs' request for preliminary relief, pausing (or “staying”) two pieces of the final rule: part (i) of the professional degree definition, which contained ED’s new requirements that narrowed the fields of study that would be considered professional degree programs, and the stipulation that a degree program’s graduates not be required to work under another professional’s supervision. Howell also directed the parties to jointly propose a briefing schedule for when the full case would be heard by July 2.
In response to the judgment, ED issued an Electronic Announcement (EA) (GENERAL-26-42) clarifying how schools should treat professional degree programs for loan limit purposes while the pause is in place. The guidance includes an updated list of CIP codes that are temporarily eligible for the higher professional degree program loan limits during the stay, until the case is heard in full and a final ruling is made, as well as a list of programs that may have been previously eligible but have been temporarily removed from eligibility.
Rather than filing a proposed schedule on July 2 as directed, both the plaintiffs and the defendants filed a joint motion requesting an additional week. According to the filing, the NP plaintiffs say the department's list of professional degree programs from the June 29 EA does “not appear to cover all of [the NP] Plaintiffs' relevant degree programs, including advanced nursing degrees that can be earned in other CIP Codes that are not listed." Plaintiffs have asked ED counsel to clarify whether the list is exhaustive, whether it will be updated, and how it should be interpreted. PA plaintiffs have separately asked the department to clarify the guidance's scope as it applies to Physician Associates/Assistants, and are still awaiting a response. ED counsel says the department is "actively considering updates to the technical guidance."
The court has not yet ruled on the extension request. If granted, the parties would be required to file a joint status report, including a proposed briefing schedule, by July 9.
NASFAA will continue to monitor the case and provide updates in Today's News.
Publication Date: 7/8/2026
You must be logged in to comment on this page.