This article examines the judicial reasoning of the United Kingdom House of Lords in cases touching on counter-terrorism issues that were decided between 2004 and 2009. Rather than "judging the judges" critically or bringing together the case law for the purpose of compiling empirical trends, the article uses these cases to explore the Law Lords’ approach to various issues of human rights in an age of counter-terrorism, and to investigate deeper questions about the nature of judicial adjudication. It adapts a framework devised by David Feldman two decades ago, and seeks to identify, as Feldman did in 1990, some of the "public law values" lying beneath the Law Lords’ decisions.