This paper focuses on individual social rights, and their consequences for Norwegian local democracy. In the Norwegian power study judicialization of politics is a key element in the crisis diagnosis over local democracy. This paper discuss the power study’s rather pessimistic conclusions in light of both political and juridical science literature on the field. The parliament’s argument for introducing individual social rights has been its commitment to fundamental social needs. The paper shows that local governments are responsible for welfare laws that give both local politicians, and professions, opportunities to have a say. The increase in judicial activism confirms that welfare legislation opens for differences in local adjustments. The power study argues that individual social rights means less space for political debates, and accordingly has made the court room to an important political arena. However, welfare legislation, and hence, individual social rights, are decided by the Storting, not by the courts. The paper shows that the relationship between individual social rights, the welfare professions, and democracy is a key, and unresolved, issue. The role of the municipalities in the formation of welfare policies is a key conflict dimension in Norwegian politics. The power study raises important questions about the courts role in the democratic process. What does increased judicial activism means for democracy? How is social politics affected when it is no longer only a political project, but also a judicial one?