UK Court Dismisses Human Rights Challenge to Housing Benefit Cap

It has been more than a decade since advocates challenged New Jersey’s “Child Exclusion” in state court arguing in an amicus brief in Sojourner A. v. New Jersey Dep’t of Social Services that the denial of welfare benefits to children born on welfare violated human rights.  While dismissing the plaintiffs’  domestic law claims, the New Jersey Supreme Court gave only glancing attention to the merits of the human rights argument, concluding in a footnote that international law claims of birth order discrimination failed under its analysis.

Recently, the UK Court of Appeal considered a similar case, S.G. v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.  In the UK case, the challenged policy was a general cap on housing benefits, more akin to the family cap policy challenged in Dandridge v. Williams than the Child Exclusion policy at issue in Sojourner.  However, the UK litigants challenged the housing cap on the grounds that it particularly discriminated against women, with special burdens on single mothers facing domestic violence.  As in Sojourner, the plaintiffs raised human rights concerns under the Children’s Rights Convention.

Unfortunately, the outcome of the UK case tracked the results in both Dandridge and Sojourner.  The court found that the government’s actions were rational, and that human rights law did not create any affirmative right to housing.  An excellent blog by Rosalind English on the UK Human Rights Blog provides more details.  As this case highlights, direct enforcement of ESC rights norms through litigation continues to be an uphill battle on both sides of the Atlantic.