In this article, we analyze constitutional interpretations in the leading constitutional cases bythe Finnish Supreme Court (Korkein oikeus) and the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court (Korkeinhallinto-oikeus), paying particular attention to the use of preparatory works and precedents in constitutionalinterpretations. The article is based on an empirical comparative study in which we analyze theconstitutional reasoning of the Nordic Supreme Courts, using quantitative methods. The article showsthat the Finnish courts (and Nordic courts in general) use legislative intent as an independent argument,a practice that is uncommon outside the Nordics. In addition, the article demonstrates that Finnish courtstend to lack confidence in their own authority, placing greater trust in the Constitutional Law Committeeand exercising self-restraint in constitutional adjudication. Finally, challenges relating to the courts’ deferentialand cautious approach to constitutional interpretation are highlighted.