ABSTRACT
Over the last few years, the welfare rights of illegalized migrants living in Belgium have become increasingly restricted. Without a legal residence status, such rights are limited to (conditional) access to public healthcare. Welfare courts have, however, sometimes gone against the grain and granted social assistance benefits to irregularized applicants, based on fundamental rights principles. Conflicting jurisprudential trends have emerged and are still debating the ambiguous, and multiple meanings of ‘human dignity’ especially for those with a precarious immigration status. This article delves into the role of courts in the implementation of migrants’ welfare rights. Based on ethnographic fieldwork within welfare courts, in public administrations and amongst migrants, it shows how litigation has become part of the daily governance of social protection. This allows certain categories of migrants to gain access to financial assistance, yet creates lengthy, complex procedures and leading to great uncertainty for claimants.