The aim of this article is to study the role of judges and their impact on the retaliation processes initiated by organisations against whistleblowers. More specifically, we question the normative logics used by judges to validate or invalidate such processes. To this end, we cross-check and analyse judicial data from the LuxLeaks case (2010-2018). Our results firstly enable us to establish a relationship between, on the one hand, the interpretative power of judges and their profile and, on the other hand, the attitude that judges may have at the end of the retaliation process towards whistleblowers, i.e., retaliatory actors or protective actors. Our results also explain the normative dynamics that permeate the judicial retaliation process. They show that judges can challenge existing legal norms, clarify and operationalise others, and create new norms regulating ethical behaviour in organisations.