Two ironies about American exceptionalism over social rights

It is often assumed that the United States of America is exceptional in according poor legal status to socio-economic rights, and that its judges show a distinct reticence towards enforcing positive entitlements. This article challenges this view by identifying two ironies in the American brand of exceptionalism about social rights. It argues that, notwithstanding America's exceptionally low public commitment to social spending, its judges have often enforced positive duties to provide social services in a manner that is in fact strikingly interventionist by international comparison. It also shows how this more robust involvement in welfare rights adjudication has often not produced the results desired by advocates of social rights, and may even in some cases have been regressive. The article explores the causes and consequences of the experience, and suggests what lessons it may hold out for other countries.