PA Student Loan Case Moves into Next Phase: What PAs and PA Students Need to Know 

October 2, 2026

AAPA and the PA Education Association (PAEA) continue to challenge the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) classification of PA programs under new federal student loan limits. 

This week, AAPA and PAEA took the next step in that litigation by filing a motion for summary judgment with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The filing follows an important early victory in the case this summer, when the court granted a preliminary injunction blocking ED’s challenged definition of “professional degree” from taking effect for the plaintiffs. 

Here’s where the case stands, what has happened so far, and what PAs and PA students should know. 

What did AAPA and PAEA file this week? 

AAPA and PAEA filed a motion for summary judgment, a standard next step in the litigation that asks the court to decide the case based on the law and the record before it. 

Our argument remains that in rulemaking ED added requirements to the definition of “professional degree” that were in violation of the law Congress enacted, and those requirements would improperly exclude PA programs from the higher federal student loan limits available to professional degree students. 

What led to this lawsuit? 

Earlier this year, ED proposed new federal student loan limits as part of its Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) rulemaking. AAPA and PAEA strongly opposed the Department’s proposed definition of “professional degree,” urging ED to recognize that PA programs meet the definition established by Congress and warning of the consequences for PA students and the healthcare workforce. 

Despite those concerns, ED finalized a rule that would classify new PA students initiating federal loans after July 1, 2026, in the lower “graduate” borrowing tier, limiting federal loans to $20,500 annually and $100,000 in aggregate. Students enrolled in qualifying professional degree programs may borrow up to $50,000 annually and $200,000 in aggregate. PA students who previously received federal loans before July 1 are grandfathered under the previous system.   

For many PA students, those lower limits would leave a significant gap between the federal loans available to them and the actual cost of completing their PA education, including tuition, fees, and necessary living expenses. 

AAPA and PAEA challenged the final rule in court because PA programs meet the three-part professional degree definition established by Congress: 1) PA education provides advanced professional and clinical training beyond the bachelor’s level, 2) it prepares graduates to enter the PA profession, and 3) PA education leads to professional licensure. 

In finalizing the rule, ED added requirements that are not included in the law, including requirements related to doctoral-level education, length of education, program classification codes, a limited list of qualifying degrees, and whether graduates practice under supervision or in collaboration with another healthcare professional. AAPA and PAEA argue that ED exceeded its authority by using those additional requirements to exclude PA programs from the professional degree category. 

Didn’t AAPA and PAEA already win in court? 

We won an important preliminary victory. 

On June 24, the court granted preliminary relief blocking the parts of the challenged definition that had no basis in law from taking effect while the litigation proceeds. In granting the injunction, the court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that ED’s rule is contrary to law. 

That decision provided critical and immediate protection for PA students while the full legal case continues, but the preliminary relief is not the end of the litigation. The court still must consider the underlying legal claims. That is the phase the case is now entering. 

What happened after the preliminary injunction? 

Following the court’s ruling, ED issued interim guidance acknowledging while the case moves forward PA programs can be treated as professional degree programs under the statutory definition. 

However, ED also advised institutions that they may wish to consider limiting loans to the lower graduate-level amounts while the litigation remained pending. 

That has created continued uncertainty for some PA students. Declarations submitted as part of the litigation describe students confronting financing gaps, depleted savings, relocation expenses, difficulty paying basic living costs, interrupted enrollment, and concerns about whether they will have enough funding to complete their programs. 

What are AAPA and PAEA arguing now? 

The central question has not changed. 

Congress established the definition governing which programs qualify as professional degree programs. AAPA and PAEA maintain that PA programs satisfy that definition and that ED cannot add new requirements that are inconsistent with the law Congress enacted. 

The summary judgment filing lays out that argument in full and asks the court to rule based on the law and the record developed in the case. 

Why does this matter for the future of the PA workforce? 

The impact of these loan limits extends well beyond how individual students finance their education. If prospective students cannot access enough federal financing to cover the cost of PA school, some may decide they simply cannot afford to become a PA. In a survey of current PAs and PA students, 1 in 3 said they would not have pursued a career in medicine if these limits had been in place when they were financing their education. 

The impact could be particularly significant for students who do not have access to private financing or substantial personal or family resources, creating new barriers to entering the profession and potentially narrowing the pipeline of future PAs. 

At a time when communities across the country are already facing healthcare workforce shortages and growing demand for care, reducing that pipeline has implications far beyond PA programs. Fewer people able to pursue PA education ultimately means fewer healthcare professionals available to care for patients and communities that need them. 

What happens next? 

The case now moves through the summary judgment briefing process. ED will have an opportunity to respond to the plaintiffs’ arguments, and additional briefing will follow before the court considers the issues. Briefings in the case are set to conclude in early December with the possibility that the judge could schedule an in-person hearing. 

You May Also Like:
Medicare Coverage for Colorectal Cancer Screenings Expanded to Include All PA-ordered Tests
Explore PA Practice Laws with AAPA’s New Interactive Maps
Your PA Compact Questions Answered: What PAs Need to Know as Progress Continues