The ‘Homeless Families with Children’ Litigation
Richard Clary
Clary.pdf (718.77 KB)
The ‘Homeless Families with Children’ Litigation

In the United States, courts have played a key role in defining socio-economic rights and in enforcing the government's obligations to provide and protect those rights.

Such long-term judicial oversight has provoked political debate over the proper role of the courts versus the executive branch. That debate has five key aspects: (1) declaring the right at issue, including the source of that right; (2) defining the scope of the right; (3) enforcing the right; (4) the (alleged) downsides of long-term judicial oversight; and (5) defining when the court should end its role.
 
This policy brief uses the Homeless Families with Children litigation (McCain v. Bloomberg) as a case study. 
 
ALSO OF INTEREST
Policy Brief
Constitutional Socio-Economic Rights: Lessons from Central Europe

Whether socio-economic rights should be entrenched in constitutions has been a subject of lively debate. On the one hand, it has been argued that such an entrenchment is necessary in order to recognize the worth and standing of those rights and in order to give individual claimants sufficient remedies in cases of a breach of a right. On the other hand, it has been argued that it is unnecessary (because statutory recognition is sufficient) and even harmful because it invites judges to enter into the field of social policy where they have neither competence nor legitimacy to act.

Download
Policy Brief
The Constitutional Politics of Socio-Economic Rights: Proceduralism ‘Writ Large’

This policy brief examines the constitutional protection of socio-economic rights in their relationship to the political process.

 
How should constitutional courts approach claims of socio-economic rights? Should they defer to politically elected bodies? If not, what kind of arguments should judges employ in their reasoning?
 
Download
Policy Brief
The Role of Courts in the Implementation of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights

This policy brief sets out some of the recent case law on the right to the highest attainable standard of health and argues that this jurisprudence exposes the unnecessarily narrow construction of the social contract.

The boundaries of the social contract can be expanded to encompass not only the civil and political elements, but also the social.
Download
Policy Brief
Can Courts Be ‘Trusted’ in National Security Crises?

A challenge for any democratic republic is to establish modes of governance that can effectively defeat or mitigate national security threats while also preserving freedoms and public accountability. To many, especially during national security crises, courts are expected to act as guardians of liberty and the boundaries of state power. 

Download