The paper examines the argumentation strategies of the Constitutional Tribunal’s case law on the reprivatisation of Warsaw real estate, a significant social issue in modern Poland. Following the post-war expropriation by the communist regime, legal successors of dispossessed individuals (both heirs and buyers of the claims to particular land) initiated widespread litigations to reclaim property and obtain compensation. This process led to the forceful eviction of thousands of tenants and the relocation of public institutions. This complex legal landscape lacks a (...) comprehensive regulation for property restitution, resulting in reprivatisation cases being handled solely as court disputes without central legislation, leading to a decentralised system of reprivatisation. The Polish Constitutional Tribunal, with its unique position within the legal system, has played a crucial role in shaping the legal framework and influencing the outcomes of reprivatisation cases. The study employs an analysis of all Constitutional Tribunal judgments related to the reprivatisation of Warsaw’s real estate, highlighting the evolution of the discourse of the Constitutional Tribunal in this regard. It consists of two parts: mixed method (quantitative and qualitative) was utilised to assess how Constitutional Tribunal judges justified their decisions (what types of argument they used), and the discourse analysis method was used to analyse how they approached reprivatisation in the real-world context. This study gives insight into the arguments and reasoning that the judges used and how their framing of the legal discourse changed over 30 years. (shrink)