In this chapter, I argue that in some hard cases philosophy of language provides intellectual tools that can explain legal practice, aid the courts in defining the crux of the problem—and even help to resolve the case at hand. I start by defining hard cases and then move to present a particular example of such a case: choosing a method to assess whether a name promotes communism and is therefore forbidden under the 2016 Polish Prohibition of the Promotion of Communism Act. Next, I use the speech act theory to show how the resort to the tools offered by the philosophy of language can help to analyse the problem and develop additional arguments for the courts. In the end I claim that even though using the speech act theory (and philosophy of language in general) may not be enough to determine the court’s decision, it can often help to justify the judgement in a rational way, and therefore make it easier to accept for those interested in the ruling.