Skip to main content
CLASP submitted a public comment in support of New York’s Section 1115 request to implement multi-year continuous eligibility for young children from birth to six years old who are enrolled in Medicaid or Children’s Health Plus (New York’s Children’s Health Insurance Program). We specifically lent our insights and expertise on the following areas:

>> Read comment here.

Immigrants need access to public benefits like Medicaid, CHIP, and SNAP. Inclusive federal policies are crucial for this access, as anti-immigrant policies and rhetoric have eroded trust in government institutions among immigrant communities. The public charge rule deters immigrants from accessing benefits, threatening their immigration status.

Despite the Biden-Harris Administration’s efforts to revert to long-established policies, the chilling effect persists, causing immigrants to avoid essential benefits. For example, SNAP participation among U.S. citizen children with immigrant parents dropped by 22.5% between 2018 and 2019. In May 2024, the Biden-Harris Administration expanded health coverage for DACA recipients and immigrant youth through the ACA Marketplace, benefiting an estimated 100,000 DACA recipients.

The Biden-Harris Administration set new deportation priorities and recommitted to protected areas policies. These actions help prevent immigrant families from being separated or harmed by immigration enforcement. States use Medicaid flexibilities to expand health coverage for immigrants, supported by federal administration. As of November 2023, 15 states and D.C. have expanded health coverage beyond federal options.

Rebuilding trust in immigrant communities requires consistent implementation of supportive policies. The federal government must approve state waiver applications and oversee anti-immigrant state policies to ensure a strong social safety net for all. Ensuring due process and inclusive policies is essential for a more inclusive society and economy.

>> Read the full brief

By Yasmine Elkharssa 

In an age of near instant communication, navigating the political landscape can feel like wading through murky water. Political misinformation—which can take the form of half-truths, manipulated facts, or outright lies—threatens to drown out truth and erode public trust. This is particularly dangerous for immigrant communities in the United States, who are already vulnerable to being politicized through the spread of misinformation.

As the November election approaches, polls and media attention once again suggest that immigration will likely be one of the main issues. Disinformation about immigrants, religious minorities, and other marginalized groups has been used to reinforce cliches and damaging tropes and inflame social division, and harms the lives of real people.

The divisive narrative around immigration is not new. In the 1990s, xenophobia grew rampant with the proliferation of rhetoric that framed immigrants as a threat to the ’s cultural identity of the United States. An increase in immigration to this country led state politicians and media outlets to promote strict immigration policies, such as California’s Proposition 187, which aimed to deny access to public services like food programs and health care to undocumented individuals. This climate of suspicion and hostility deeply impacted immigrant communities, fostering an environment of exclusion and discrimination that set the foundation for the enactment of federal laws  like the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act and Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.

The weight of these discriminatory policies continue to be felt today. Politicians have continued to call for detrimental policies such as family separation at the southern border, increased deportations, and restricting asylum seekers from entering the U.S.

When misinformation is amplified by powerful politicians, it is no surprise that this rhetoric becomes reflected by the  public. Research has found that online misinformation about immigrant communities can lead to the promotion of false representations of immigrants; foster negative attitudes; and consolidate prejudices against immigrant groups. Due to the speed and reach of online misinformation, the negative outlook on immigrants can lead to violence and persecution against ethnic groups and harmful immigration policies.

Perhaps, then, it’s not surprising that immigrants commonly face a great deal of mental health struggles, in part due to rhetoric and anti-immigrant policies. A study suggests that recent immigrants, such as those who are undocumented or have limited English proficiency, are more likely than U.S. citizens to experience high stress levels and anxiety, which cultural and social barriers may compound. Fear and distress in immigrant communities is heightened by political misinformation. Compared to white Americans, undocumented immigrants were found to underutilize or prematurely end treatment due to fear of using health coverage due to immigration enforcement, and barriers to access care.

Immigrants’ humanity should not be overlooked due to their legal status, ethnicity, or country of origin. The spread of misinformation in politics and among the general public has only amplified the harm and discrimination against their communities. 

To build a society rooted in truth, we must listen to the lived experiences of immigrants and counter the harms of misinformation. The American public, policymakers, and the media need to:

Accessible, affordable, high-quality child care and early education are vital for the economic well-being of families, communities, and the nation. However, families, especially those of color with low incomes, face significant challenges in accessing these services due to systemic racial and economic barriers. Federal programs like the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) and Head Start help, but funding has never met the need.

Affordability remains a major hurdle, with child care costs often exceeding the federal affordability benchmark. Only a fraction of eligible children receive subsidies, with racial and ethnic disparities further limiting access. The pandemic highlighted the importance of child care, with relief funding providing temporary support. Yet, without continued investment, these gains are at risk.

Recent policy shifts, such as the Biden-Harris Administration’s Executive Order and new CCDBG rules in February 2024, show progress. However, sustained, significant public investments are needed to build a universally accessible, affordable, and equitable child care system, free from its historically racist roots.

>> Read the full brief

>> Lee en español

By Priya Pandey and Angélica Díaz Nuñez

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to keep mifepristone available and accessible means that a crucial way for people, particularly young people, to access reproductive care remains legal and protected. 

Even before the Dobbs decision, barriers such as parental involvement laws, the Title X Domestic Gag Rule, and the Hyde Amendment severely curtailed access to abortion. These legal and policy restrictions disproportionately affected young people, who often struggle with financial constraints, logistical barriers like being able to travel to distant service sites, and the stigma surrounding abortion. That stigma further hinders their ability to seek necessary health care and advocate for reproductive rights amidst a hostile legislative climate aimed at limiting abortion access nationwide. 

While abortion bans and restrictions affect all people seeking reproductive care, young people face additional logistical and legal hurdles. For example, legislators in Idaho, a state that has already banned abortion, recently became the first state to criminalize assisting someone under age 18  in traveling out of state to get a wanted abortion. Abortion restrictions and bans do not just impact young people who are pregnant or seeking abortions. They also influence their decisions about voting and where to live, study, and work, as well as their ability to manage their reproductive futures. Additionally, these restrictions may significantly affect the mental health of young people.

In 2022, 58 percent of adolescents seeking abortion care chose to have a medication abortion. Nearly a quarter of adolescents chose which health center to go to because it offered the option of medication abortion, while 40 percent selected it based on proximity and 26 percent for the ability to receive care as soon as possible. 

The accessibility of mifepristone has been enhanced by FDA policies that permit telehealth prescriptions and mail delivery to patients, as well as its availability in major pharmacy chains and prescriptions from nurses and other health professionals. However, state abortion bans, specific bans on telehealth for medication abortion, and requirements for in-person dispensation of mifepristone and in-person visits will continue to restrict access in many states. 

As a result, mifepristone accounted for nearly two-thirds of all abortions performed in the United States last year. Despite state laws aimed at restricting this medication, statistics indicate that individuals in those states still obtain it through mail deliveries, as state authorities have limited oversight over shipments handled by the U.S. Postal Service. This ease of access, coupled with comprehensive information on its safe use, underscores mifepristone’s crucial role in empowering young people to manage their reproductive futures and assert their bodily autonomy.

Mifepristone is safe and effective, and has been used by more than 5 million people in the U.S. for both medication abortion and miscarriage care since it was approved by the FDA in 2000. The ability to access mifepristone helps ensure that young people can make private medical decisions in a timely manner and expands access to reproductive health services, which are under dire threat in this country. 

Because of their age, financial circumstances, and other unique challenges, young people face distinct challenges in accessing reproductive care that the Dobbs decision has only exacerbated. As a result, they may not always feel empowered to make the choices they desire about their reproductive health care. These choices do not exist in a vacuum; they are informed by an individual’s hopes, dreams, fears, and desires, as well as the present reality of their life. Protecting access to medication abortion, and the ability to self-manage an abortion procedure at home, is a critical part of guaranteeing the reproductive rights of young people. 

To be able to make these choices in an informed and supportive way, young people need to be able to understand what options they have and these options need to be available and accessible to them. Young people deserve to get the medicine they need, and providers should be able to provide that medicine easily and without unnecessary interference from courts or politicians. While the Supreme Court decision is encouraging, there is still much work to be done by advocates and voters to ensure that access to mifepristone is not further stifled by state policies. Mifepristone will remain on the market and accessible in states where abortion is legal. However, the attack on medication abortion could continue; the case at the center of the Court’s ruling will be sent back down to federal district court judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who has already allowed Kansas, Missouri, and Idaho to intervene in the case. 

Every public elected official at every level of government must do everything in their power to help protect access to abortion and reproductive health care. Young people deserve to live in a world that supports their hopes and dreams and allows them to make the decisions that are in line with what they want for themselves and their bodily autonomy. We need to ensure abortion care is not just legal, but accessible, affordable, and confidential.  

 

>> Read in English

Priya Pandey y Angélica Díaz Nuñez

La reciente decisión de la Corte Suprema de mantener la mifepristona disponible y accesible significa una forma crucial para que las personas, en particular les jóvenes, accedan al cuidado de salud reproductiva y que siga siendo legal y protegida.

Incluso antes de la decisión Dobbs, barreras como las leyes de participación de les familiares, la Ley Mordaza Doméstica del Título X y la Enmienda Hyde restringían severamente el acceso al aborto. Estas restricciones legales y políticas afectaron desproporcionadamente a les jóvenes, quienes a menudo luchan con limitaciones financieras, barreras logísticas como la posibilidad de viajar a lugares de servicio distantes y el estigma que rodea al aborto. Ese estigma obstaculiza aún más su capacidad de buscar cuidado de la salud necesario y defender los derechos reproductivos en medio de un clima legislativo hostil destinado a limitar el acceso al aborto en todo el país.

Aunque las prohibiciones y restricciones al aborto afectan a todas las personas que buscan cuidado de la salud reproductiva, les jóvenes enfrentan obstáculos logísticos y legales adicionales. Por ejemplo, les legisladores de Idaho, un estado que ya ha prohibido el aborto, recientemente se convirtieron en el primer estado en penalizar la asistencia a una persona menor de 18 años para viajar fuera del estado para obtener un aborto deseado. Las restricciones y prohibiciones al aborto no solo afectan a les jóvenes con embarazo o que buscan abortar. También influyen en sus decisiones sobre votar y dónde vivir, estudiar y trabajar, así como en su capacidad para gestionar su futuro reproductivo. Además, estas restricciones pueden afectar significativamente la salud mental de les jóvenes.

En 2022, el 58% de les adolescentes que solicitaron servicios de aborto optaron por un aborto con medicamentos. Casi una cuarta parte de les adolescentes eligió el centro de salud al que acudir porque ofrecía la opción del aborto con medicamentos, mientras que el 40% lo eligió por la proximidad y el 26% por la posibilidad de recibir cuidado de salud lo antes posible. 

La accesibilidad de la mifepristona ha mejorado por las políticas de la FDA que permiten la prescripción por telesalud y la entrega por correo a les pacientes, así como su disponibilidad en las principales cadenas de farmacias y la prescripción por parte de enfermeres y otres profesionales de salud. Sin embargo, las prohibiciones estatales del aborto, las prohibiciones específicas de la telesalud para el aborto con medicamentos y los requisitos para la dispensación en persona de la mifepristona y las visitas en persona seguirán restringiendo el acceso en muchos estados.

Como resultado, la mifepristona representó casi dos tercios de todos los abortos practicados en Estados Unidos el año pasado. A pesar de las leyes estatales destinadas a restringir este medicamento, las estadísticas indican que las personas de esos estados siguen obteniendo la mifepristona a través de envíos postales, ya que las autoridades estatales tienen una supervisión limitada sobre los envíos gestionados por el Servicio Postal de Estados Unidos. Esta facilidad de acceso, unida a la amplia información sobre su uso seguro, subraya el papel crucial de la mifepristona en el empoderamiento de les jóvenes para gestionar su futuro reproductivo y afirmar su autonomía corporal.

La mifepristona es segura y eficaz, y ha sido utilizada por más de 5 millones de personas en EE.UU. tanto para el aborto con medicamentos como para el aborto espontáneo desde que fue aprobada por la FDA en el 2000. La posibilidad de acceder a la mifepristona ayuda a garantizar que los jóvenes puedan tomar decisiones médicas privadas en el momento oportuno y amplía el acceso a los servicios de salud reproductiva, que están gravemente amenazados en este país. 

Debido a su edad, sus circunstancias económicas y otros retos específicos, les jóvenes se enfrentan a dificultades específicas para acceder a los servicios de salud reproductiva que la decisión del caso Dobbs solo ha empeorado más. Como resultado, no siempre se sienten con su poder para tomar las decisiones que desean sobre su salud reproductiva. Estas decisiones no existen en el vacío, sino que dependen de las esperanzas, los sueños, los miedos y los deseos de cada persona, así como de la realidad actual de su vida. Proteger el acceso al aborto con medicamentos, y la capacidad de autogestionar un procedimiento de aborto en casa, es una parte fundamental de la garantía de los derechos reproductivos de les jóvenes. 

Para poder tomar estas decisiones con conocimiento de causa y apoyó, les jóvenes deben poder entender qué opciones tienen y estas opciones deben estar disponibles y ser accesibles para elles. Les jóvenes merecen obtener los medicamentos que necesitan, y les proveedores deben poder suministrarlos fácilmente y sin interferencias innecesarias de los tribunales o los políticos. Aunque la decisión del Tribunal Supremo es alentadora, aún queda mucho trabajo por hacer por parte de les defensores y les votantes para garantizar que el acceso a la mifepristona no se vea aún más sofocado por las políticas estatales. La mifepristona seguirá en el mercado y será accesible en los estados donde el aborto es legal. Sin embargo, el ataque contra el aborto farmacológico podría continuar; el caso en el que se centra la sentencia de la Corte se remitirá de nuevo al juez federal de distrito Matthew Kacsmaryk, que ya ha permitido a Kansas, Misuri e Idaho intervenir en el caso. 

Todas las personas en cargos públicos electas de todos los niveles de gobierno deben hacer todo lo que esté en su mano para ayudar a proteger el acceso al aborto y a los servicios de salud reproductiva. Les jóvenes merecen vivir en un mundo que apoye sus esperanzas y sueños y les permita tomar las decisiones que estén en acorde con lo que quieren para sí mismes y su autonomía corporal. Debemos garantizar que la atención al aborto no sólo sea legal, sino también accesible, asequible y confidencial. 

By Gabrielle Chiodo

This piece aims to uplift the perspectives and experiences of immigrants, especially as July is BIPOC mental health awareness month.

The United States’s mental health crisis has worsened in recent years, with more than 1 in 5 adults experiencing mental illness. As the government and mental health organizations seek to assist those experiencing emotional turbulence, immigrants, who make up nearly 14 percent of the population, have been left out of crucial conversations. Experiencing a mental health crisis can be even more challenging when basic needs are not being met, which is the case for many immigrants, 18 percent of whom live below the poverty line. A lack of resources makes accessing adequate mental health care particularly difficult. 

While the stigma around discussion of and treatment for mental illness has decreased for a majority of Americans, immigrants face intersectional obstacles that exclude them from aid, including health care, and conversations concerning emotional well-being. To learn more about immigrant perspectives on mental health, CLASP’s mental health and immigration and immigrant families teams conducted four focus groups with Bangladeshi immigrants and children of Bangladeshi immigrants in Austin, Texas and Warren, Michigan. CLASP recognizes that focus group participants do not represent either their entire community or all immigrants, and hopes to learn more from other immigrant populations in the future. 

We are aiming to release a brief in the fall of 2024 with an in-depth analysis of these focus groups, but even the preliminary analyses of the transcripts have been revealing. Participants discussed intricate family dynamics and how they can support or hinder a person’s mental health. One participant shared how having his wife and children with him during the immigration process was the biggest factor in maintaining his mental well-being. His family spent time discussing the various struggles they were facing together as immigrants and trying to find solutions to overcome obstacles. 

Another participant described how her spouse encourages her to take care of herself when she is feeling the mental toll of being in the U.S. Her family dynamic and support system allowed her to spend time with friends and family without the additional pressure of always needing to be home and in a caregiver role. Other participants shared how their families supported them in pursuing professional help. One participant, a student, noted, “I get support from my own therapist. Every week, I can talk about family pressure and assignment stress. My parents are very supportive as well, especially being a Bengali girl.” 

However, not all of the Bangladeshi immigrants had these positive experiences. Some disclosed how existing within a family unit brought stress and stigmas upon them during emotional tribulations. Expectations were often heightened, especially for young adult children of first-generation immigrants, as they feel pressure to honor the opportunity given to them by their parents.

One participant shared the impact of these pressures: “There are lots of expectations especially if, you know, you’re coming from a brown family. There are lots of comparisons out there, you know. So I feel like that kind of influenced my mental health, you know, overthinking a lot of my past decisions, you know, just saying, ‘Oh you know what could have been better for them [referring to his parents]?’”  Other participants echoed this statement and shared how they felt pressure to achieve academically, financially, and emotionally to satisfy parents and other family members. 

While feeling societal and familial pressure may be inherently human, these participants offered a glimpse of the pressures that some within Bangladeshi immigrant communities face to succeed. Adult children of immigrants especially expressed struggling with the impact of expectations throughout their lives.

With increased pressure and challenges to mental health, government-funded movements aimed at treating America’s mental health crisis need to understand the ways immigrant families operate and create room for complexities. Many participants discussed ways Western therapy methods failed to account for immigrant family and community dynamics. 

“Let’s say even if you’re working with a white therapist, they won’t understand. So the advice they’ll give you is very different, than, um, you know. They’ll be like, ‘Oh my God, this person’s so toxic, but it’s, like, very normal,’” one participant from Texas shared. 

The participant elaborated on this experience, saying, “When I first started therapy, it was, like, a white therapist and it didn’t work for me at all. Like, they were really not helpful.”

Conventional Western therapy often does not take the variability of immigrants and immigrant families and their cultures into consideration. Consequently, those within immigrant communities seem to feel misunderstood when discussing their struggles with white therapists. With nearly 81 percent of therapists identifying as white, an immediate need exists for therapists to diversify and decolonize language and practices used in counseling. Further, government programs aimed at helping those struggling with mental health concerns should give specialized consideration to immigrant spheres. 

Participants in focus groups echoed this need and offered creative ways the government can support immigrants’ mental health. “I can speak for my community,” said one participant from Michigan. “We have a lot of mosques, right? We have, like, you know, religious leaders. Sometimes people confide in them, to, like, seek advice, because they can trust them, because, you know, they’re [a] community leader and so on, right? But I feel like we should train them or have some sort of, provide some resources to them when it comes to, like, navigating mental health.”

Government officials and mental health professionals cannot overlook immigrants who have been left out of mental health conversations. By acknowledging the complexities of their experiences and families, more Americans can begin to discuss the hardships they are facing with an expectation of acceptance rather than judgment. Assisting immigrants during America’s time of heightened anxiety and depression is a way to reach those who may be persevering in silence. 

By Julianna Zhou

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a novel Section 1115 waiver opportunity in April 2023 that allows states to offer Medicaid services to individuals who are leaving incarceration. Twenty-two states have already submitted demonstration applications extending Medicaid benefits to qualified pre-release individuals, and CMS has approved applications from California, Washington, Montana, and Massachusetts. The pre-release Medicaid waiver is a major opportunity for states to close the health equity gap for formerly incarcerated individuals and help those leaving incarceration thrive in their home communities.

Individuals leaving incarceration face serious negative health outcomes and a high risk of death due to overdose in the weeks immediately after their release. The carceral health care system has a demonstrated record of racial disparities, chronic health neglect, and inaccessible processes. CLASP urges states to center the rights and privacy of systems-involved populations and guard against the reach and influence of the criminal legal system into the lives of those transitioning back into the community.

Some States Are Investing in Community-Based Care, But More Can Be Done

A key opportunity in the new pre-release Medicaid option is the chance for states to invest in community-based care for individuals leaving incarceration, as Massachusetts has done. The state’s approved demonstration covers community and peer-provided services including doulas; uses its capacity-building funds to offer facility-based care coordinators from community-based providers; and includes a reinvestment plan that would invest federal matching funds into community-based services to support healthy transitions and/or diversion from involvement in the criminal justice system. Massachusetts demonstrates its prioritization of community repair over punitive community supervision for returning individuals through its meaningful engagement with and investment in community-based providers.

The Majority of States Are Opting for the Maximum Pre-Release Period Allowed

The pre-release coverage period ranges from 30 to 90 days, the maximum allowed by CMS. Just over half of the states that have submitted a demonstration waiver have opted for the maximum, and seven of the remaining 10 states have opted for the minimum. We urge all states to opt for the full 90-day pre-release period to maximize the number of people who can benefit from these programs. Having the time to establish a consistent treatment plan prior to release can improve health outcomes for individuals leaving incarceration.

Eligibility Criteria Limit the Equity Impact of Pre-Release Medicaid

Many states’ waiver demonstration applications are part of larger state efforts to address the opioid and mental health crises. Five states limit their demonstration’s eligibility criteria to only individuals suffering from substance use disorder and/or severe mental illness. By over-defining qualifying conditions, states are hindering the impact of this transformative policy opportunity. Incarcerated populations are more likely to have chronic health conditions such as high blood pressure, asthma, cancer, and infectious diseases (e.g., hepatitis C and HIV) than the public. All these conditions can be debilitating or even fatal if not medically monitored.

Eligibility can also be limited by the carceral setting a person is preparing to leave. Whether someone is incarcerated in a state or local jail, prison, or youth correctional facility should not determine if they qualify for pre-release services. States that want to roll out their pre-release Medicaid program methodically should instead consider implementing a timeline for gradually expanding the program to additional facilities rather than setting limitations on facility participation from the outset.

To truly and effectively support an incarcerated individual’s transition back into the community, Medicaid re-entry programs should cover the health care needs of all individuals who would otherwise qualify for Medicaid if not for their incarceration status, regardless of their carceral setting or medical condition.

Only A Few States Plan to Offer Full Medicaid Benefits and Services

Many states’ waiver demonstrations only cover a limited set of Medicaid benefits to individuals prior to their release, which often include case management, medication-assisted treatment, counseling, and a 30-day supply of medication upon release. Only Arkansas, Rhode Island, Utah, and Vermont plan to offer all the health care services included in their state health plans. Some states offering a limited set of benefits also include additional housing or nutrition services targeting health-related social needs.

Conclusion

States have an enormous opportunity through the Medicaid re-entry waiver to invest in community and peer health workers and prioritize community care within the health care system. Sadly, pre-release Medicaid enrollment flexibilities have limited value in the 10 remaining states that have not expanded Medicaid. CLASP hopes that when implementing these waivers, states will learn the lessons of the failed mass incarceration movement and center the health and support needs of individuals transitioning back into the community.

For 25 years, CLASP’s Child Care and Early Education (CCEE) team has been instrumental in ensuring that millions of families with children have equitable access to affordable and quality care and education. We are so deeply proud of the impact CLASP’s CCEE team has had over the last 25 years.–rom leading the charge in securing billions of dollars in relief resources during the Great Recession and COVID-19 pandemic – to the reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) in 2014 – all the while continuing the extensive and much needed research and advocacy in the field, CLASP’s efforts have resulted in millions more children having access to affordable, high quality child care. Over the coming months, we will plan to highlight key people, including former and current CCEE staff, CLASP leadership and partners, and notable moments in the team’s history.

Mark your calendars for our culminating event – the 25th Anniversary Celebration! On Wednesday, September 25, 2024 at 6:00pm ET we will bring together CLASP and the CCEE team’s alumni, friends, and partners to celebrate some of our greatest achievements, and learn about the bold vision for the work ahead.

With 25 years of experience and expertise behind us, we’re also looking ahead to the next 25, reimagining the narrative of child care in this country and what it means to have true affordable and accessible care for everyone. Our vision remains the same: to advance racial, gender, and economic justice by centering people with lived experience to advocate for equitable access to affordable child care and early education that meets families’ and providers’ needs.

RSVP below to join us this fall on Wednesday, September 25th at 6:00pm ET. We can’t wait to see you there! More details on event location and virtual options will be announced closer to the event.

RSVP

The following statement can be attributed to Elizabeth Lower-Basch, deputy executive director for policy at the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP).  

Washington, D.C., June 27, 2024–Today in a pair of cases, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned a 40–year–old precedent, known as “Chevron deference,” which generally required courts to defer to the expertise of agency rulemakers. This precedent has supported tens of thousands of rules used by federal agencies to execute regulatory authority on topics from the environment to financial services to patient, consumer, and worker protections, and protected them from frivolous lawsuits. With this change, all regulations will be much more vulnerable to litigation – which will delay implementation even when the regulations are eventually upheld – and judges will be able to make decisions grounded in their personal opinions rather than the substantive knowledge of agency experts.  

Exactly how damaging this decision will be remains to be seen; Justice Roberts in his decision claims that it “does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework.” But the decisions in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce raise the stakes for judicial appointments at all levels, as well as increase the need for Congress to pass detailed legislative instructions that leave less room for judicial meddling. Because countless federal regulations support people with low incomes, these decisions have the potential to significantly affect their lives.