In this review of JasonWhitehead’s new book Judging judges, I explore the four broad types of judicial grounds judges tend to adopt (in American courts, at least) when adjudicating cases, and the impact this might have on our understanding of the rule of law: formalism, good faith, cynicism, and rogue views. After briefly introducing the issue of adjudication and the rule of law, I conclude that Whitehead’s interview grounded typology may be of great utility than merely the North American context of his empirical work might initially suggest. As such I argue that to understand the manner in which adjudication can support the rule of law, and how it might undermine it, we need to look at how judges are motivated to act, not merely examine their judgements, or the normal survey evidence.