This article critiques nine judicially-constructed dichotomies that dominated administrative law following the war. These dichotomies were fixed and unforgiving, portraying administrative law as rigorous and analytical. They lent respectability to a subject that naturally spawned suspicion. Senior judges denounced the subject as “Continental jargon” and the work of “academicians”. The irony is that the dichotomies employed to invigorate the subject were transparently false. They stultified administrative law reasoning and checked the courts’ ability to be effective purveyors of public accountability.