A Tale of Two More Matters: Department of Education Lawsuits Alleging Nursing Is a Profession
Last year, two landmark nursing cases—AANA v. HHS and Palmer v. Bontachallenged long-standing inequities: discriminatory insurance reimbursement for Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) and the refusal to allow Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs) and other doctoral-prepared advanced practice nurses to use the title Dr. This year, the legal battle has shifted to student loans.
More than a dozen national nursing organizations have filed two federal lawsuits challenging a U.S. Department of Education (DOE) Final Rule that narrowly defines a “professional student” to include only 11 master’s and doctoral degree programs—while excluding every advanced practice nursing degree. (American Nurses Association et al. v. McMahon et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-12443; American Association of Nurse Practitioners et al. v. McMahon et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01780.)
The stakes are significant. Under the Final Rule, graduate students may borrow up to $20,500 annually in federal loans, while students classified as “professional” may borrow up to $50,000 each year. By excluding advanced practice nursing programs from the professional category, the Final Rule sharply limits access to federal financial aid for future nurse practitioners, nurse anesthetists, nurse midwives, and clinical nurse specialists.
The nursing organizations scored an early victory. On June 24, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the American Association of Nurse Practitioners’ request to halt implementation of the Rule while the litigation proceeds. The District Court for the District of Columbia found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits because the Final Rule’s definition of “professional degree” likely conflicts with federal law. (Case No. 1:26-cv-01780, Dkt. 46, Memorandum Opinion of Judge Beryl A. Howell, June 24, 2026.) The District Court also concluded that the nursing organizations would suffer irreparable harm if the Final Rule took effect and that both the balance of equities and the public interest favor preserving the status quo during judicial review.
At the heart of both lawsuits is a straightforward argument: advanced practice nursing programs already satisfy the statutory requirements for “professional student,” “professional degree,” and “professional licensure” under 34 C.F.R. § 668.2 (2025). The plaintiffs contend that, despite those existing standards, the DOE’s May 1, 2026 Final Rule (91 Fed. Reg. 23768) imposed new eligibility requirements that Congress never enacted in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), rendering the Rule unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Department attempted to justify the exclusion by asserting that advanced practice nursing degrees “do not satisfy the contextual requirements” reflected in an “illustrative list” of professional degrees. That list includes chiropractic, podiatry, optometry, theology, law, medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, and clinical psychology—but omits every advanced practice nursing degree, including the Doctor of Nursing Practice and Doctor of Nurse Anesthesia Practice.
The omission is difficult to reconcile with the Rule itself. Nothing in the statutory definition meaningfully distinguishes those listed professions from advanced practice nursing. Like physicians, pharmacists, dentists, psychologists, and other recognized professionals, advanced practice nurses complete rigorous master’s or doctoral education, obtain professional licensure, and provide highly specialized patient care.
The Rule goes even further by introducing a supervision requirement, suggesting that a profession qualifies only if its licensees practice without supervision. The plaintiffs argue that this requirement appears nowhere in the governing statute or prior regulations. It is particularly difficult to square with the reality that Nurse Practitioners and Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists now practice independently in most states and in the District of Columbia.
The consequences extend far beyond legal semantics. Millions of registered nurses could be affected, including thousands pursuing advanced practice degrees whose access to federal student loans now depends on whether the DOE can lawfully exclude nursing from the ranks of the nation’s recognized professional degree programs.
Once again, the courts are being asked to answer a familiar question: when advanced practice nurses meet the same educational, licensure, and professional standards as other healthcare professionals, can they lawfully be treated differently? The District Court’s preliminary ruling suggests the answer may well be no.
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Health Care law is fact-specific, and readers should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their individual circumstances.
—
Kate Bowles is a Business Litigation attorney, providing healthcare organizations and businesses with insightful guidance and strategic advice on healthcare disputes and compliance issues. Her background as a Registered Nurse and her experience legal encompasses all aspects of healthcare, including traditional healthcare systems, facilities and health plans, and emerging provider-types and trade organizations. Kate can be reached at kbowles@fennemorelaw.com.