Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What legal challenges or state responses have emerged following the 2025 reclassification of degrees?
Executive summary
Federal reclassification of which graduate programs count as “professional degrees” under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) has prompted immediate pushback from higher‑education groups, professional associations and commentators; critics warn nursing, public health, many allied‑health and education programs would lose access to higher loan limits set to begin July 1, 2026 (e.g., students in professional programs could borrow up to $50,000 annually vs. $20,500 for other grads) [1] [2]. Early legal and political responses include predictions of lawsuits, active lobbying by professional organizations, and state or sectoral efforts to press the Department of Education to change course [3] [4] [5].
1. A narrow regulatory definition with wide consequences
The Department of Education’s implementação of OBBBA relies on an existing regulatory definition of “professional degree” that explicitly lists about ten fields (Pharmacy, Dentistry, Medicine, Law, Theology, etc.), and the rulemaking committee’s drafting chose to limit which other programs qualify — a technical choice that directly determines who gets the higher loan caps and who does not [1] [6]. The consequence: graduate programs not sharing the department’s chosen Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes — including many advanced nursing, public health and allied‑health degrees — would be excluded from the “professional” category even if they require licensure and doctoral education [6] [7].
2. Stakeholder backlash and lobbying underway
National associations representing nursing, public health and research universities have already signaled alarm. The American Nurses Association and nursing outlets report exclusion of advanced nursing programs from the professional‑degree list and describe active campaigns and petitions to reverse the decision; public‑health groups likewise warn the exclusion could weaken workforce pipelines [2] [7]. Leading research universities and associations say the proposed draft will “limit the number of degree programs” eligible for higher loan limits, and they are advocating in comment periods and public messaging [8] [7].
3. Legal challenges are expected — but specifics are still emerging
Commentators and analysts say the department’s actions are “very likely to face legal challenges,” but available reporting summarizes that possibility rather than detailing filed cases; Forbes and New America both note the department should expect litigation as part of implementing these changes [3] [1]. Available sources do not list specific lawsuits already filed challenging the reclassification, so the forecast of litigation is based on expert expectation and the scale of affected stakeholders [3] [1].
4. How states and institutions might respond
States, professional boards, and institutions are mobilizing to persuade the Education Department to revise the proposed text; nursing organizations and some state nursing boards are lobbying for reinstatement of nursing as a professional degree, and universities are preparing comments for the department’s rulemaking process [5] [8] [7]. Separately, the Administration’s broader shift to partner ED responsibilities with other agencies (DOL, HHS, etc.) has fed debate about federal control and state roles, which could shape state‑level political pressure or legislative responses [9] [10].
5. Practical impacts cited by advocates and critics
Advocates warn the reclassification will reduce graduate students’ borrowing capacity — for example, graduate students in non‑professional programs would face the new lower annual/aggregate caps (starting July 1, 2026), potentially affecting ability to pursue advanced training in nursing, public health, social work and education — and could, critics say, deter entrants into in‑demand health fields [1] [2] [7]. Opponents of the prior regime argue narrower definitions prevent overbroad federal subsidy and target funds to a discrete set of long‑duration professional programs; Newsweek and threaded social posts capture the public debate over what should count as “professional” [11] [12].
6. Limits of current reporting and next steps to watch
Reporting to date details the draft definitions, stakeholder objections, and predictions of litigation, but does not yet provide comprehensive court filings or final regulatory text in force; New America and NASFAA note implementation details and the prospect of future lawsuits, and NASFAA records granular questions about CIP code mechanics that will matter in challenges and comments [1] [6]. Watch for (a) the department’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 30‑day comment period referenced by ASPPH, (b) formal petitions or lawsuits from professional associations or states, and (c) any congressional or state legislative reactions that could alter funding or statutory direction [7] [1] [3].
Final note: sources consistently show a fast‑moving rulemaking fight — technical choices about CIP codes and regulatory cross‑references are the legal fulcrum — and while litigation is widely expected, available reporting so far centers on forecasts, lobbying and draft language rather than on resolved court outcomes [6] [3] [1].