In 1914, our administrative litigation system originated in the Ping-jheng-yuan of the Peking Government. The Ping-jheng-yuan not only adjudicated administrative litigations, but also impeached government officials who violated the law, through a subordinate office,Su-jheng-shih. After the nation was unified and the central government organized a five- yuan (five-branch) system in 1928, impeachment cases became the domain of the Control Yuan. The Organic Law of the Administrative Court and the Administrative Litigation Act were promulgated on November 17, 1932 and took effect on June 23, 1933. The first President of the Administrative Court was inaugurated on the same day, coinciding with the establishment of the Administrative Court. The Judicial Yuan issued the Regulations on the Operation of the Administrative Court on June 24, 1933. The Administrative Court officially started operations and received cases on September 1 of the same year , adopting one-level one-instance court system, made final judgments of which there were no appeals or interlocutory appeals.

    The Administrative Court moved to the Judicial Building as our government moved to Taiwan in 1949. (It moved to its current location in October 1985. In December 1992, a new building was planned for the current location. The construction was completed in June 1996.) The administrative litigation system was not changed, and the number of cases was small. Later, due to economic development, the enhancement of living standards, and the success of civic education, citizens became increasingly aware of their legal rights. Therefore, the number of administrative litigation cases increased and became more complicated. As the Administrative Litigation Act had just 34 articles providing for only a few essential principles, many procedural aspects were governed by the Civil Procedure Act by way of reference in the Administrative Litigation Act. In July 1981, in response to the trend of the rule of law, and for the purpose of protecting people’s rights and interests, and promoting public interest, the Judicial Yuan started to overhaul the administrative litigation system. It took eleven years for drafts of the Administrative Litigation Act and the Organic Law of the Administrative Court to be completed. The new Administrative Litigation Act, promulgated on October 28, 1998 and taking effect on July 1, 2000, consisted of 308 articles. It abolished the second administrative appeal that had been mandatory prior to suing a government agency in an administrative court. In addition, it allowed more types of actions than the original actions for revocation, such as actions for declaration and actions to order performance etc. as well as expanded temporary protection of rights. The Organic Law of the Administrative Court, promulgated on February 3, 1999 and taking effect on July 1, 2000, adopted a two-level two-instance court system. Three High Administrative Courts, located in Taipei, Taichung, and Kaohsiung, are courts of factual trial and the first instance. The former Administrative Court was transformed into this Court―Supreme Administrative Court, which is a court of legal review and the last instance. It has proved to be a significant reform of the administrative litigation system.

The Administrative Litigation Act was revised and promulgated again on July 4, 2007. The amendment, taking effect on August 15, 2007, adds rules as to filing fees and the transfer of cases under wrong jurisdiction, and modifies rules regarding retrial and legal representatives in litigation. These changes are foundational reform for administrative litigation system.

    In order to move in tandem with the international trend of protecting intellectual property rights and to enhance the professionalism and efficiency of the adjudication of disputes related to intellectual property, the Intellectual Property Court was established on July 1, 2008, at the level of the High Court or High Administrative Court. The Intellectual Property Court hears all disputes related to intellectual property. According to the Organic Law of Intellectual Property Court §3(3) and §3 (4) — a special provision regarding the jurisdiction over an intellectual property case of administrative litigation, the Intellectual Property Court hears intellectual property right related cases of administrative litigation at first instance and case involving compulsory enforcement; for cases heard by the Intellectual Property Court may be appealed or interlocutory appealed to Supreme Administrative Court. In addition, to adjudicate important civil and commercial disputes quickly, properly, and professionally, on January 15, 2020, the Commercial Case Adjudication Act was enacted, and the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court Organization Act was amended. The amendment took effect on July 1, 2021. The Commercial Court was combined with the Intellectual Property Court and renamed Intellectual Property and Commercial Court. It was a new chapter for the judicial resolution of intellectual and commercial cases in our country.

    More than ten years after the administrative litigation system adopted a two- level and two-instance court system, as only three High Administrative Courts which are located in Taipei, Taichung and Kaohsiung respectively, are courts of the first instance, inconvenience resulted for people initiating  litigations. In order to solve this problem and to gradually have public law related cases reverted to the administrative adjudication, the Administrative Litigation Act was revised and promulgated on November 23, 2011 which subsequently took effect on September 6, 2012. The administrative litigation system thus became a three-level and two-instance system according to which administrative litigation division was added to all district courts. The first instance of summary proceeding cases of administrative litigation and the related evidence preservation cases, injunctive procedure cases and compulsory enforcement cases are heard by the administrative litigation division of the district courts. Traffic adjudication cases which were previously adjudicated by the ordinary courts are now adjudicated in accordance with the administrative litigation procedure. A milestone was set for the structure of the administrative litigation system.

    Judicial Yuan Interpretation Nos. 708 and 710, for the purpose of protecting personal freedom as required by Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, requires judicial review for the detention of foreigners and people of the Mainland Area. For the period of temporary detention necessary for the repatriation process, detainees should be accorded timely judicial remedies; any period of detention that is not necessary for the repatriation process should be reviewed and decided by the judiciary. The Administrative Litigation Act was therefore amended on June 18, 2014 to include procedure for petitions for relief from detention, and the amendment became effective on February 5, 2015. This Court's function of protecting individual persons’ rights and interests was further enhanced.

    As professionalization is a direction of judicial reform, this Court has begun since January 2000 to assign judges to adjudicate exclusively intellectual property, tax matters, and land matters. Through accumulating more experiences in adjudicating these matters, judges' professional ability and the efficiency of trial were enhanced. The Taxpayers' Rights Protection Act became effective on December 28, 2017, and, as required by the Act, this Court established panels (tin), consisting of five judges, that specialized in adjudicating tax matters. In addition, in order to realize the protection of taxpayers' rights and to assist judges to adjudicate tax matters, judges are helped by employees that had professional education in accounting or tax matters and, since 2020, by Judicial Associate Officers with expertise in finance, tax, or accounting.

    This Court, the court of final instance for administrative litigation, has the duty to make uniform the legal opinions held by the various panels of this Court toward the same legal issues. Such a duty avoids the situation in which various panels of this Court rendered different judgments or rulings on the same legal issues, ensures that judges apply the law equally to every individual person, ensures the stability and predictability of the rule of law, and helps the law’s continued growth. The Organic Law of Administrative Courts was amended on January 4, 2019, and the amendment took effect on July 4, 2019. Pursuant to the amendment of the Organic Law of Administrative Courts, a special panel—grand panel or da fa tin—was established in this Court so that the legal opinions held by the various panels of this Court toward the same legal issues may be made uniform through litigation procedure. The amendment formally put an end to the predecessors—Committee for the Compilation of Precedents and Joint Conference of the Presiding Justices and Justices. The amendment sets a milestone for this Court to make uniform the legal opinions held by the various panels of this Court toward the same legal issues.

    The fast development of urbanization in our country not only affects the distribution of land resources, population growth, and economic growth but also involves issues of living standards and housing justice. To facilitate the economic and social development of the country and protect the fundamental rights of our citizens, citizens should be afforded an opportunity, when their property rights are infringed, to file timely litigation to seek remedies. The competent authorities should abide by the legal norms when drafting, approving, and promulgating urban plans, which judicial remedies should ensure. Therefore, the Administrative Litigation Act was amended on January 15, 2020, to provide a procedure for reviewing urban plans. A citizen may initiate a lawsuit seeking remedies over an illegal urban plan that harms his or her rights or legal interests. The amendment took effect on July 1, 2020, and is the first time an administrative court may review the legality of legal norms. Such a rule resolves disputes in advance, enhances the protection of individual rights, and ensures the rule of law.

    To build a solid structure for administrative litigation, the Administrative Litigation Act, the Enforcement Act of the Administrative Litigation Act, the Administrative Court Organization Act, the Court Organization Act, and the Judges Act were amended on June 22, 2022, and the amendment took effect on August 15, 2023. The Administrative Litigation Panels of all district courts are moved to High Administrative Courts. The High Administrative Courts, therefore, consist of District Administrative Litigation Panels and High Administrative Litigation Panels. The scope of the cases that may be appealed to this Court was also narrowed so that the lower caseload of this Court may enable this Court to concentrate more on the interpretation and application of law and resolve conflicting judgments or rulings on the same issues. The amendment also modified the procedure of oral argument at this Court,  simplified the contents required of judgments and rulings, established the mediation mechanism in administrative litigation, and punished frivolous lawsuits. In addition, the amendment established a “dissenting opinion” mechanism to allow the justices in deliberation to publicize their legal opinions, whether they are the majority or the minority. Such dissenting opinions may be read by society, and, therefore, the important mission of this Court as an instance on legal issues to form consensus on legal opinions and upholding legal order may be realized.