Social welfare and the courts: The dilemmas of liberalism

Political scientists at least since the 1950s have generally characterized the poor in American history as politically "quiescent". But, the dominant notions of "ideological consensus" and "ideological hegemony" lead scholars to neglect turbulent moments when poor people revolted against "economic injustice." Between 1965-76, the most politically passive of all the poor--welfare recipients--protested against the prevailing economic distribution. The impact of the welfare rights movement far exceeded the number of participants, who were mostly impoverished black single mothers. The movement's accomplishments were due largely to the assistance of government-funded lawyers.;Using an eclectic theoretical framework drawing on the insights of Pubic Law, Political Jurisprudence, and Critical Legal Studies, the dissertation examines the dilemmas the welfare rights movement posed for the federal courts, the nature of the courts' response to a poor people's movement, and the implications for the American welfare state. Apart from the important institutional role of the courts in welfare policymaking, one cannot fully explain the welfare rights movement's impact without taking seriously the ideological dimension of law. Thus, after providing historical background on the "right of necessity," the thesis analyzes the Warren Court's understanding of equality; the alliance between the National Welfare Rights Organization and the Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law; and the victories and setbacks that LSP attorneys experienced in the courtroom. The policy focus is AFDC, the most politically contentious welfare program.;The federal government established the Legal Services Program (LSP) in 1964 to offer the poor free legal counsel. LSP attorneys mediated between the poor's grievances--the demands "from below"--and the response from the federal courts--the response "from above." Reform-oriented LSP attorneys racked up important victories in the federal courts; these victories not only alleviated the poor's immediate economic woes, but also facilitated the political organization of the welfare rights movement. The lawyers failed, however, to persuade the Supreme Court to "constitutionalize" a "right to live." Although the Warren Court and lower federal courts handed down many decisions that promoted equality, they were much more constrained by Constitutional doctrine and political ideology than most scholars acknowledge.