Why do courts sometimes decide to liberalize migrants’ rights, while at others restricting such rights, even contrary to the policies of elected governments? This article addresses this question in the context of Greece. It explores the causes and consequences of judicial decision making in a major decision of the Council of State that suspended the most important government reform of 2010, promoting the integration of third‐country nationals. Drawing on judicial politics scholarship, it argues that the ideological and political preferences of key judges were an important influence on the first Council of State decision considered here. However, in the final decision, intra‐court dynamics and the judges’ consideration of external political constraints influenced the court's reasoning, leading to a more moderate outcome, with important consequences for the relaunching of policy reform.