Third Lawsuit Challenges RISE Rule’s Professional Degree Definition
By Megan Walter, Senior Policy Analyst
A coalition of four labor unions filed a lawsuit against the Department of Education (ED) last week, adding a third legal challenge to the Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) Committee’s final rule definition of “professional degree,” setting up yet another court fight over which graduate programs qualify for the higher federal loan caps.
The plaintiffs are the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organization (AFL-CIO), the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and National Nurses United (NNU). Collectively, these unions represent millions of workers across the professions that the final rule excludes from its definition of “professional student,” including advanced practice nurses, teachers, social workers, librarians, and public health practitioners.
This isn't the first lawsuit over the rule’s definition of a professional degree, and the complaint directly cites the June 24, 2026 ruling in the case brought by professional associations representing nurse practitioners and physician associates, where the judge granted a preliminary injunction, or pause, for part of the definition before the July 1 effective date took place. ED’s response was interim guidance expanding its list of qualifying degrees, however this expanded list applies only as long as that court's stay remains in place.
The labor union plaintiffs' complaint flags two problems with relying on that fix. First, that the department’s expanded list still leaves out entire categories of programs the union represents, and second, that ED never explained what criteria it used to decide which degrees to add. Rather than leaving the fate of these programs tied to the duration of an ordered stay/pause in another case, one that only reaches certain professions and could be lifted, modified, or appealed at any point, the unions are seeking their own vacatur of the provisions, or nullification, that would resolve the question for their members directly and, if granted, nationwide.
The plaintiffs bring seven counts under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), organized around three underlying disputes:
-
The professional student definition itself, which the plaintiffs argue that ED's rule departs from the statute as written by Congress by: treating the program list as exhaustive rather than illustrative, requiring a degree to be strictly necessary to enter a profession (rather than signaling readiness to begin practice), treating licensure as a universal requirement instead of a general one, and excluding professions that require supervision by other licensed professionals.
-
The interim exception, which excludes students who transfer schools, even while staying in the same program, and causes students who temporarily withdraw and later re-enroll to lose the protection entirely. The plaintiffs argue that this provision doesn’t agree with the statute, exceeds ED’s statutory authority, and is arbitrary and capricious, noting that ED’s only stated justification, that a transfer counts as "a new program of study" even within the same program, wasn't explained or supported when the agency rejected comments raising this exact concern.
-
The effective date for the RISE rule of July 1, 2026, which the plaintiffs argue ED violated the HEA’s “master calendar” provision, which requires that regulations be published by November 1 to take effect on July 1 the following year. Because ED published the RISE rule on May 1, 2026, they argue the July 1 effective date was impermissibly early. The plaintiffs also argued that the professional student definition was self-executing because Congress defined it directly in statute and therefore did not require implementing regulations.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare that the final rule provisions exceeded ED’s statutory authority; to vacate the named provisions from the rule; prohibit ED from implementing or enforcing the provisions of the rule; and to postpone the rule’s effective date.
This is now the third major lawsuit challenging the RISE rule's loan caps and definition of professional degree, joining the nurse practitioners and physician associates litigation (briefing running through December 4) and the 25-state coalition case (briefing set to close on November 6). With three cases moving on separate but overlapping tracks, it's possible a ruling in one could shape or render irrelevant arguments in the others before all three reach final judgment.
NASFAA will continue tracking developments across all three cases as they proceed and provide updates on further developments in Today’s News and on NASFAA’s new litigation tracker webpage.
Publication Date: 8/17/2026
You must be logged in to comment on this page.