To Comply or Not to Comply, That Is the Question: The Street‐Level Implementation of Jurisprudence by Migration Officers

ABSTRACT Building on Lipsky's scholarship, street‐level research conceptualises street‐level bureaucrats as policymakers who redefine policies through their discretionary practises. By focusing on decision‐making, this literature highlights the crucial role of non‐legal factors in shaping discretion. Consequently, the impact of judicial review on street‐level bureaucrats' practises is often overlooked or considered limited, and frequently attributed to a lack of legal expertise. To better understand why judicial decisions seem to have such a limited influence on administrative practises, this paper examines what happens within the administration after court rulings are issued. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork conducted within the Belgian Immigration Office—the public agency responsible for processing family reunification applications—I show that court decisions trigger a collective interpretative process involving both caseworkers and legal experts, which can be understood as a form of epistemological bricolage. By questioning the aim of such a process, this paper makes two interrelated contributions. It challenges the assumption that bureaucratic noncompliance stems from a lack of legal knowledge, showing instead that administrative actors may deliberately choose not to comply and may even engage in strategic litigation. Consequently, it reveals that street‐level actors shape policy not only through case‐by‐case bureaucratic reasoning but also by actively participating in forms of legal activism.