This research examines the judicial implications of "supra-constitutional" principles within the Iraqi and Egyptian legal systems. It is premised on the significance of these principles in safeguarding rights and freedoms, as well as protecting fundamental constitutional values ​​that remain inviolable—even by the constituent power itself. The study aims to elucidate the influence of these principles on the functioning of constitutional adjudication, identify similarities and differences between the Iraqi and Egyptian approaches, and assess their efficacy as a mechanism for ensuring the stability of the democratic order and preventing legislative or constitutional deviations. Employing a descriptive-analytical and comparative methodology, the research analyzes relevant constitutional and legal provisions, examines the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court of Iraq and the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt, and draws upon constitutional scholarship to delineate the theoretical foundations of these principles. The study concludes that, in the Iraqi context, supra-constitutional principles lack explicit judicial recognition, rendering their legal impact limited and weak. Conversely, the Egyptian judiciary has established them as supreme values—transcending the constitution itself—through the rulings of the Supreme Constitutional Court, which has utilized them as a benchmark to invalidate conflicting legislation. Furthermore, the research finds that the absence of clear constitutional provisions in Iraq has led to judicial hesitation in adopting these principles, whereas the Egyptian experience has leveraged the "spirit of the constitution" and its general principles to give them practical effect.