Cases & Developments

The Department of Education continues its work to develop regulations related to the implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“OB3”) with meetings for a second negotiated rulemaking committee. The Accountability in Higher Education and Access through Demand-driven Workforce Pell or “AHEAD” Committee, will meet to discuss regulations related to the new “workforce Pell” program as well as a change in the law preventing students from receiving a Pell grant if the students’ other non-Federal aid equals or exceeds their cost of attendance. A discussion paper on this week’s session can be found here and a list of all committee members can be found here. A second session looking at institutional and program accountability metrics in OB3 (also referred to as the “Do No Harm Framework”) has been scheduled for January 5-9, 2026.

The Department of Education announced the launch of a new earnings indicator that will show prospective students average post-graduation earnings when completing the FAFSA application. The Department will be using existing Department data and if an institution’s average earnings are below that of the average high school graduate, FAFSA will generate a “low earnings” disclosure.

The Department of Education announced that the negotiators of the Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) committee reached consensus on a definition of a professional degree. The committee agreed that the programs eligible for the higher loan cap would include medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, optometry, law, veterinary medicine, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, chiropractic, theology, and clinical psychology. The committee also reached unanimous consensus on other proposed changes to federal loans and repayment plans. More details can be found in this summary provided by the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators.

Complaint for Declaratory Relief. Plaintiffs, a group of cities, counties, nonprofit organizations and associations, sued the Department of Education and Secretary McMahon alleging the Department’s October 31, 2025 final rule on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program is unlawful and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Plaintiffs contend that they face “direct, immediate, and seriously detrimental injury” because the final rule “forces them to engage in burdensome compliance activities, threatens to cause them economic harm through loss of talent and anticipated increased costs to their hiring and employee compensation, and . . . chills their protected speech.” Plaintiffs also argue that the final rule is arbitrary and capricious because it is based on “unsupported assertions [and] proposes to address a problem that it cannot substantiate.” Further, plaintiffs allege that the final rule violates the free speech rights of nonprofit plaintiffs and associational plaintiffs as it is overbroad and “not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.” Finally, plaintiffs allege that the final rule violates due process and is void for vagueness because it does not provide “a sufficient basis to understand what conduct is actually prohibited.” Plaintiffs request that the court declare the final rule unlawful and unconstitutional, vacate it, and permanently enjoin defendants from implementing or enforcing it.