Guest Opinion
A regulatory change that has largely gone unnoticed by the news media is the recent Department of Education decision to change the definition and scope of what constitutes a “profession” for purposes of receiving student loans. The American public would probably be shocked to learn that the Department of Education decided that nursing, among other fields, would no longer be considered a “profession.”
What Is a Profession?
A profession has traditionally been defined by law, often as an occupation that requires a license. Those who practice without a license are typically subject to civil or criminal penalties in order to protect the public, which places its trust in members of a particular profession. In some cases, individuals may need to belong to a professional guild or association to be recognized as professionals in their field.
Over the years, professions have come and gone. One of my favorites is the profession of “pricking,” which became popular beginning around 1530. A professional guild was created to protect the integrity of the profession. Pricking was the practice of identifying the “Devil’s mark” on the body as evidence in a witch trial.
What Is a Profession for Purposes of Student Loans?
Although a profession can be defined by state law, it can also be defined by federal regulations that govern the student loan process.
On January 30, 2026, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) from the U.S. Department of Education proposed new regulations defining a profession for purposes of determining the amount of student loans students would be allowed to borrow. The Department of Education took legislative language from the Big Beautiful Bill, which was identical to the Department’s existing regulatory definition, and decided to narrow it on May 1, 2026. The Department determined that only certain degrees in eleven fields would qualify as “professional” degrees:
- Pharmacy (Pharm.D.)
- Dentistry (D.D.S. or D.M.D.)
- Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.)
- Chiropractic (D.C. or D.C.M.)
- Law (L.L.B. or J.D.)
- Medicine (M.D.)
- Optometry (O.D.)
- Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.)
- Podiatry (D.P.M., D.P., or Pod.D.)
- Theology (M.Div. or M.H.L.)
- Clinical Psychology (Psy.D. or Ph.D.)
This distinction is critical because it changes the amount of federal student loans a student may borrow. Students pursuing a professional degree can borrow up to $50,000 annually and $200,000 in aggregate. Graduate students in fields not designated as professional degrees are limited to $20,500 annually and $100,000 in aggregate. If your degree is not among the eleven fields designated by the Department of Education, you would be subject to the lower graduate loan limits.
On May 21, 2026, six associations filed suit against the Department of Education to stop implementation of the new regulation. These associations represent advanced practice nursing, therapy, public health, and education professionals. They sought to halt implementation of the NPRM, which had not yet completed the required rulemaking process but was nevertheless scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026.
The court found that at least six substantive changes had been made to the statutory definition without completion of the required rulemaking process. The statutory definition included requirements that a student complete the educational requirements of the degree and that the profession generally require licensure before an individual could practice in the field. These provisions were consistent with the existing rule.
However, the Department also added an unusual new requirement. As described by the court:
“Superimposed on these proposed definitional requirements for ‘professional degree,’ the NPRM added another requirement, explaining that a degree is not a ‘professional degree’ when the degree leads to employment where the employee must be supervised by another professional who has, as required by their license and degree, more education, training, and qualifications than the person being supervised.”
The Department could potentially change the rule if it completed the regulatory process required by the Administrative Procedure Act, including providing at least sixty days for public notice and comment. However, it did not complete that process. The court noted that the Department’s rationale appeared to be that because the legislation was not enacted in time for a full rulemaking process, Congress must have implicitly waived those procedural requirements. Such reasoning runs contrary to longstanding legal principles that Congress says what it means and that implied exceptions generally do not carry the force of law.
Furthermore, even if the Department of Education had properly followed the rulemaking process, it still could not adopt a rule that exceeds the statutory language enacted by Congress. In this case, Congress already defined what constitutes a profession, leaving little, if any, room for the Department to expand or narrow that definition.
On June 24, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a stay blocking implementation of the rule, which had been scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026. While this is welcome news for nurses, architects, engineers, and other affected professions, the Department of Education could still appeal the court’s decision.
Final Thoughts
The Department of Education has recognized that student debt is a serious problem. However, the unintended consequences of its proposed solution may be worse than the problem it seeks to solve. Limiting access to student loans for professions such as nursing, at a time when the nation faces significant workforce shortages, could make those shortages even more severe.
The Department of Education should return to the drawing board on the student loan dilemma and recognize that it is unlikely to be solved by redefining professions in an arbitrary and ultimately unworkable manner.
To read more articles by Professor Sutton go to: https://profvictoria.substack.com/
Professor Victoria Sutton (Lumbee) is a law professor on the faculty of Texas Tech University. In 2005, Sutton became a founding member of the National Congress of American Indians, Policy Advisory Board to the NCAI Policy Center, positioning the Native American community to act and lead on policy issues affecting Indigenous communities in the United States.
