In post- revolutionary Egypt, the judicialization of politics have emerged as one of the most important sites for negotiating the nature and limits of political authority. From adjudication over human rights abuses, the limits of the prerogative powers of the state, and the role of different branches of the government, judges came to play an increasing role in politics. But how is that role different from the pre-revolution period? Does the increased judicialization of politics strengthen the rule of law or does it deter it? This paper argues that judicial politics in post-revolutionary Egypt had been marked by an increasing self- weakening of judiciary. Such a weakening need to be assessed in terms of two distinct logics of that have dominated the relation between government and law that have been in play historically and in contemporary Egypt: the rule of law and state sovereignty. Through an analysis of judiciary politics in Egypt since 2011, this paper charts the roots and reasons behind the weakening of judiciary independence in post-revolutionary Egypt; arguing that the logic of state sovereignty had won over the rule of law as the military and the judiciary formed an alliance to defeat what they perceived as an existential crisis facing the state. The 2013 coup d' etat was a watershed moment where the judiciary scarified its independence in exchange for increased political and professional influence. One major consequence of this had been the weakening of courts as a venue for challenging executive power in Egypt, and the overall triumph of concept of state sovereignty over that of the rule of law.