Self-Perception and Views on Social Politics and Law Making of Judges in Germany’s Social Courts

Germany’s social jurisdiction is unique in Europe as a special form of administrative jurisdiction. The courts are responsible for various matters relating to social security (e.g. pensions, basic income support, illness, disability) and disputes between insurance providers and service providers (Eichenhofer 2023; Stolleis 2003). Procedural law has set low barriers for plaintiffs (no obligation to have a lawyer, no costs) in order to improve access to justice (Bogataj 2021; Masuch und Spellbrink 2014). But how do social court judges view their work? Political science focusses primarily on Supreme Courts as well as constitutional law. Other specialised jurisdictions are less often researched (Schulz 2025). For studying social courts and judges we can build on research about labour jurisdiction and judges (Rehder 2011; Rottleuthner 1984; Vogel 2013). In a qualitative interview study, conducted at the University of Kassel, I asked judges of all three instances of social courts, including the federal social court, how they see their role as judges in the German welfare state, how they evaluate the complexity of social law in Germany and if they see room for improvement of the welfare state. A second topic was if and how judges at social courts should influence the law-making process. Due to a weakness of social law in the academic education in German law faculties social judges are quite active in legal research. Finally, the political dimension of social policy and its role in democratic backsliding came up as a topic in the interviews by the judges themselves. The research project was interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary in order to integrate sociological, political science and legal research and practice. In the presentation I want to discuss results of the study and reflect on its implications for the future research questions.