Most research on Egypt conducted after 2011 leads readers to the same question “What happened to Egypt’s revolution?” Answers abound in explaining why Egypt today looks more like an authoritarian regime than in the final years of the Mubarak regime. No single factor or theory suffices to explain the complex political, economic, and social forces intersecting over the past four tumultuous years in Egypt’s history. Indeed, scholars are likely to spend many years, if not decades, deconstructing the buildup to and aftermath of what is now coined the “January 25th Revolution.” This article examines the role of the Egyptian judiciary in facilitating and impeding the populist demands for “bread, freedom, and social justice.” The article challenges the dominant narrative portraying Egypt’s judiciary as a relatively independent institution that serves as a regional exemplar in terms of sophistication, competency, and commitment to rule of law. While boasting a long history, the Egyptian judiciary has experienced ebbs and flows in its overarching trend towards more independence from the executive branch. I argue that the state of the on January 25, 2011 was at a low point in its historical struggle for independence from the executive, and has only worsened since. Endogenous and exogenous factors caused large portions of Egypt’s judiciary to betray its historical pursuit to serve as a check on authoritarianism and a refuge for citizens seeking relief from government abuse. In the end, this article brings to the forefront the paradox of Egypt’s judiciary: it is both too independent and not independent enough.