A law excluding temporary protection applicants in designated accommodation centres from social welfare benefits could see a disabled Ukrainian woman and her husband “pushed out” into a housing crisis, the Supreme Court has heard.Senior counsel Feichín McDonagh said the woman lost her disability allowance and the man his carer’s allowance under the 2024 law because they remained in their designated hotel accommodation.He described this as “irrational”, “unfair”, “capricious” and in breach of the Constitution.Having heard the couple’s appeal on Thursday over the High Court’s rejection of their case, a seven-judge Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Donal O’Donnell presiding, reserved judgment to a later date.The couple, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, have lived on a full-board basis in a hotel in Dublin since they arrived in the State in 2022 after fleeing the Russian war on Ukraine.The woman, a wheelchair user for about 10 years, had from 2022 received a means-tested disability allowance of €208 per week, while her husband received a means-tested weekly carer’s allowance of €224.Amending legislation in 2024 aimed at freeing up space in designated accommodation centres stated displaced people granted temporary protection here “shall be disqualified” from social welfare assistance, other than supplementary welfare allowance, while residing at a centre.After the couple’s hotel became a designated accommodation centre in September 2024, they lost their disability and care allowances. If they moved out, they would be entitled to the allowances.In rejecting their challenge, High Court judge Alexander Owens said they had not shown the State assistance provided to them is insufficient and ruled the disputed law was merely disadvantageous to them, rather than inherently discriminatory.People under temporary protection would be at a comparatively greater advantage than Irish citizens if they were to be eligible for social welfare assistance and full accommodation and board at the expense of the State, he said.They secured an appeal directly to the Supreme Court on the grounds it raised a “serious issue” with implications for many. That issue was identified as whether the distinction drawn between temporary protection recipients and international protection candidates, on which the legislative changes were based, is constitutionally valid. McDonagh, instructed by solicitor Eileen McCabe, said the amendments will result in the couple being “pushed out” in a situation where it is “very difficult” for a woman in a wheelchair to get alternative accommodation in a housing crisis.It would also lead to the woman’s husband being effectively forced to work, leaving him unable to provide her with the 24-hour care she needs, he said. In opposing the appeal, counsel for the Minister for Social Protection, Attorney General and Ireland, noted the couple live in a designated accommodation centre with their accommodation, subsistence needs and medical care paid for.Senior counsel Eoin Carolan said there is no claim of a constitutional or EU law right to the allowances, and the State’s provision for the couple is “fully compliant” with its obligations under the EU temporary protection directive. Legislation necessarily involves “drawing lines” between categories and people, and no other “legally relevant” people get the same benefits as this couple, he said.Beneficiaries of international protection can work and apply for social welfare but have no legal right to accommodation as that right ceases once they get protection, he said. These were all decisions the Oireachtas is entitled to take.Temporary protection, he added, is not the same as subsidiary or international protection. It is intended as an “emergency response” and is not based on individual assessment of risk. It also involves mass displacement and one consequence is the system becomes “overburdened”.