In previous work I proposed and defended a proof-based account of legal exceptions, suggesting that no “substantive” representation could be given of the conditions of judicial decisions when exceptions happen to be at play. This paper explores some jurisprudential implications of the proof-based account, seeking to work out its impact on the idea of substantive law. For reasons that I try to make clear, the relevant question to be asked is whether we need to appeal to substantive norms in order to represent those conditions of judicial decisions that bear on the substantive questions that courts are called to decide. The answer, I suggest, is “No”.