The American Federation of Teachers and several other unions have brought legal action against the US Department of Education, asking a federal court to vacate and delay a regulation that narrows which advanced degree programmes qualify as "professional" for the purposes of federal loan limits.
Unions say rule will deter entrants to teaching and nursing
The complaint, filed on 11 August 2026 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, targets the department’s Reimagining and Improving Student Education rule. Under the contested definition, students enrolled in graduate programmes the department designates as "professional" are eligible for up to $200,000 in federal student loans. Those pursuing advanced degrees in fields excluded from that designation — including graduate programmes in education — face a cap of $100,000.
The coalition named as plaintiffs includes the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the National Nurses union, among others. The unions argue the rule will have a harmful effect on recruitment into vital public-sector professions.
"[The rule] will make it more difficult and less attractive for students to enter the nursing and teaching profession."
According to the complaint, AFT in particular will be harmed because the regulation is likely to exacerbate teacher shortages, reducing the pool of potential union members in the future. The unions have asked the court both to set aside the department’s definition and to postpone the rule’s effective date.
Background and recent judicial intervention
The lawsuit follows a June decision by a federal judge who issued a temporary block on the Education Department’s definition of professional degrees. In response to that court order, and while litigation continued, the department expanded the list of programmes considered professional to include nursing, physical therapy, athletic training and occupational therapy. As of 10 July, however, graduate education programmes remained excluded from the higher loan cap.
Unions contend that the exclusion of education degrees creates a two-tiered financing landscape for postgraduate study that will discourage prospective teachers — particularly those who cannot afford to fund intensive training without access to higher federal borrowing limits.
- Loan cap for degrees deemed "professional": $200,000
- Loan cap for excluded fields (including education): $100,000
They argue the distinction is arbitrary and administratively improper, with real consequences for workforce pipelines in public services that already face staffing shortages.
Consequences for the classroom and public services
For schools, a further squeeze on the ability of prospective teachers to finance postgraduate qualifications could worsen recruitment and retention challenges, the unions say. For nursing and allied health professions, the department’s subsequent additions to the professional list may partially blunt pressure, but the plaintiffs maintain that the department’s approach remains legally and practically flawed.
The litigation frames the dispute not only as a matter of statutory interpretation and administrative procedure, but also as a policy question about how federal loan rules shape career choices. The unions describe the stakes in concrete terms: reduced access to higher borrowing for teacher preparation is likely to discourage some candidates from entering the profession at a time when many districts are already struggling to fill posts.
The Education Department has previously defended its rulemaking as part of a broader regulatory package to reform student finance and programme accountability, but the unions’ challenge underscores how technical regulatory definitions can have far-reaching effects on public services and labour markets.
| Designation | Federal graduate loan cap |
|---|---|
| Professional degrees (as defined) | $200,000 |
| Excluded degrees (including education) | $100,000 |
The case now awaits further action in the District of Columbia. If the court grants the unions’ request to vacate the department’s definition or delay its implementation, the decision could preserve higher borrowing eligibility for a wider set of graduate programmes while the litigation proceeds.
