Dworkin introduces several well-known hard cases in Law’s Empire, where various legal arguments fiercely compete, making determinate resolution difficult. As is well known, the opposing legal arguments put forward in the resolution of each case all seem persuasive at first glance, and no single argument seem to decisively justify a specific outcome. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court had to rule in favor of one party by siding with their argument. What could the losing party think about the outcome of such a trial? First, they may be surprised by the indeterminacy of the legal system when faced with a situation where legal arguments are fiercely contested. They may have thought that law is a means of dispute resolution that clearly distinguishes right from wrong according to clear standards for the litigants when a dispute arises, but they lost without a sufficient reason to accept why the winning party’s argument was accepted, not their own, without clear legal standards. Therefore, they may have doubts about the legitimacy of the legal system and the judgment. Furthermore, especially in the case of criminal trials, they may also question the legitimacy of state power that enforces such a judgment.