This research examines the role of administrative courts in controlling the expansive interpretation of legal provisions in Iraq, particularly where such interpretation may broaden administrative powers or impose obligations and restrictions without a clear legal basis. The study adopts an analytical approach by examining the conceptual foundations of expansive interpretation and analyzing the constitutional and legislative provisions governing judicial review of administrative decisions. It finds that expansive interpretation is not unlawful in itself; rather, its legality depends on its consistency with the wording of the provision, legislative intent and purpose, as well as its compatibility with rights and general principles of law. The study also demonstrates that the Iraqi Council of State Law recognizes errors in interpreting laws, regulations, and instructions as grounds for challenging administrative decisions, thereby enabling administrative courts to review the legal basis adopted by public authorities. An unlawful interpretation may result in the annulment or amendment of the administrative decision, in addition to compensation where its legal requirements are satisfied. The research concludes that effective judicial review requires reasoned administrative decisions, consistent judicial interpretation, and stronger mechanisms for enforcing judgments, thereby balancing administrative flexibility with the protection of individual rights.