processes.56 Instead, a policy must not leave out those whose vulnerability is dictated by simple material need. This can include attention to the needs of the elderly, children, persons with disabilities, and female-headed households,57 but without a substantive (or, rather, court-driven) conception of the baseline of material provision that anyone cannot go without, or below. Thus, while Grootboom represented a significant elevation of the reasonableness standard, it is also notable in rejecting a stand-alone “minimum core” approach, which would establish a minimum threshold right to access housing, for example, or health care.58 While the adoption of the minimum core approach would not prevent an inquiry into justifiable limitations,59 its advocates have suggested that it creates a more rightssupportive focus. 60 Yet in rejecting the minimum core as a standalone right, the Constitutional Court held open the possibility that the minimum core, understood as a 56 Compare the seminal theorization by JOHN HART ELY, DEMOCRACY AND DISTRUST (1980); with Bruce A. Ackerman, Beyond Carolene Products. 98 Harv. L. Rev. 713 (1985) (noting victims of sexual discrimination or poverty would have greater claim to Carolene Products’ concern, and yet not fall within the discrete, insular, or minority formulation). For a different set of criticisms of Carolene Products’ divisions, as against proportionality standards, see Vicki Jackson, Constitutional Law in an Age of Proportionality, in this volume (noting, in particular, Dandridge v. William, 397 U.S. 471 (1970) (Marshall, J., dissenting)). 57 These factors are laid out in the Prevention of Illegal Evictions Act of 1998 (PIE Act) §§ 4, 6 (S. Afr.) and in the Court’s post-evictions jurisprudence since Grootboom 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC). For commentary, see Gustav Muller & Sandra Liebenberg, Developing the Law of Joinder in the Context of Evictions of People from their Homes, 29 S. AFR. J. HUMAN RTS. 554, 565 (2013). 58 See Young, supra note 19, compare with DAVID BILCHITZ, POVERTY AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (2007) (arguing for a minimum core approach for South Africa). 59 Kevin Iles, Limiting Socio-Economic Rights: Beyond the Internal Limitations Clause, 20 S. AFR. J. HUM. RTS. 448 (2004). 60 E.g., Craig Scott & Philip Alston, Adjudicating Constitutional Priorities in a Transnational Context: A Comment on Soobramoney’s Legacy and Grootboom’s Promise, 16 S. AFR. J. ON HUM. RTS. 206 (2000); BILCHITZ, supra note 58. 11