Compliance with its judicial decisions is a crucial feature for any constitutional court that aims to be consequential or, at least, respected. Just having an independent constitutional court is not enough if its rulings are constantly ignored, defied, circumvented or overridden. Nevertheless, securing compliance is not an easy task, particularly when dealing with decisions adverse to the interests or preferences of powerful actors. Why would a strong ruler be willing to implement a decision that thwarts key governmental decisions if courts have no means to enforce their judgements? My paper claims that certain de jure constitutional arrangements can raise the costs of noncompliance and, correlatively, contribute to the implementation of constitutional court’s decisions under certain circumstances. More specifically, certain formal powers endowed to courts can help to garner the support of certain allies which could be instrumental to guarantee the implementation of their opinions.