The political sensitivity and growing informalisation of EU asylum governance has only increased the importance of non-elected institutions such as the Court of Justice of the European Union. Yet, a systematic analysis of the Court’s jurisprudence casts doubts on its ability to remain immune to the shifts in (con)temporary 5 political winds blowing through the Union. In fact, an empirical study of all asylum-related preliminary rulings reveals a disquieting trend: the Court has adopted an administrative, passivist role within the area. Its distinguishing features include an overzealous conce rn for the technicalities of the legislative instruments before it and sparse to no references to human rights instruments or values in the operative parts of the judgments. In light of the symbolic power carried by the Court’s language, this trend risks sending the wrong signal to national judicial authorities; namely, that addressing concerns for the survival of the asylum system can legitimately trump concerns for the individuals caught in it.