Were there legal challenges or congressional responses to the Department of Education's 2025 reclassification decisions?

1. Courts moved fast — emergency orders, injunctions, and ongoing litigation

Within months of the administration’s staffing cuts and program moves, plaintiffs — states, school districts, unions, advocacy groups and employees — filed lawsuits seeking to block layoffs and transfers; the Supreme Court stepped in with emergency orders allowing certain layoffs to proceed while lower‑court litigation continued and by granting or denying temporary relief in high‑profile cases such as Department of Education v. California ^{[1] [2] [8]}. The trajectory in these sources shows repeated preliminary injunctions and TRO disputes as courts weighed statutory authority, separation‑of‑powers questions, and the scope of agency discretion ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Litigation often targeted the mass layoffs and operational transfers, not only technical reclassifications

Most documented lawsuits challenged the reduction in force and the administration’s effort to move ED functions to other agencies — arguing the executive branch can’t unilaterally upend programs Congress created — and courts have issued mixed emergency rulings while allowing substantive suits to proceed in lower courts ^{[2] [6] [8]}. Reporting repeatedly frames the transfers as “sidestepping Congress,” which is the legal sting plaintiffs emphasize in litigation ^{[6] [9]}.

3. Reclassification of degrees sparked sectoral outrage and rulemaking pushback

The Department’s move to redefine which graduate degrees count as “professional” — with nursing, education, social work and many allied health and counseling degrees reportedly excluded — prompted sharp criticism from professional associations and higher‑education advocates who warned of reduced loan access and equity impacts; outlets listed the affected fields and quoted professional groups calling for reversal ^{[7] [10] [11]}. Those sources also anticipate litigation and administrative comments by stakeholders, though a named nationwide suit specifically about the “professional degree” reclassification is not listed in the provided reporting ^{[7] [10]}.

4. Congress reacted through bills, resolutions, and oversight — with partisan splits

Republican lawmakers sympathetic to the administration moved to codify transfers or even to terminate the Department (H.R.899), while Democrats responded with resolutions and requests for documents — for example, a Senate resolution supporting public K‑12 schools and condemning dismantling and a House resolution of inquiry seeking documents about the reduction in force ^{[3] [4] [5]}. Coverage makes clear congressional actions are sharply partisan: Republicans praised “cutting bureaucracy,” Democrats warned of harm to vulnerable students and sought oversight ^{[6] [5] [12]}.

5. Administrative maneuvers framed as ‘proof‑of‑concept’ for Congress — and raised legal questions

Department officials described “soft‑launch” reassignments and interagency agreements as temporary pilots intended to persuade Congress to codify changes, but journalists and legal analysts flagged that moving congressionally‑established offices without legislative approval raises significant legal questions that are now being litigated ^{[13] [6] [9]}. Legal and advocacy reporting highlights that some functions (e.g., IDEA, civil‑rights enforcement, student loans) were originally placed in ED by statute, making unilateral transfers especially contentious ^{[6] [14]}.

6. What remains unsettled and where reporting is thin

The sources document multiple lawsuits and emergency court rulings about layoffs and transfers and list legislative measures and resolutions, but they do not catalogue every suit tied specifically to the “professional degree” reclassification, nor do they provide final adjudications for many cases — many remain pending in lower courts or subject to emergency orders ^{[2] [7]}. For precise, up‑to‑the‑minute case names, filings, and outcomes, current reporting recommends following court dockets and the Brookings litigation tracker referenced ^{[15] [2]}.

7. Bottom line for stakeholders

Students, professional programs, and institutions face both regulatory and legal uncertainty: courts have allowed some administration actions to proceed while litigation continues, and Congress is both considering bills to abolish or reshape ED and advancing resolutions and oversight to counter the moves — meaning legal outcomes and congressional action will jointly determine whether reclassifications and transfers become permanent ^{[2] [3] [4] [6]}.