The existence of the tutela mechanism and the endemic weaknesses of the legislative and executive branches of the Colombian state have led to a de facto judicialization of health policymaking. The objective of evidence‐informed policy is to identify effective policy approaches and legitimize policy decisions. Questions arise about the basis on which judges take decisions with significant policy and budgetary consequences, and the forms of evidence they use to inform these. This article focuses on the extent to which courts take account of research evidence in judgements and assesses the implications for health policy in Colombia. We place these discussions in the context of a broader analysis of the ongoing reforms to the Colombian health system and the most recent literature on evidence‐informed policymaking. The judicialization of health policymaking offers a suboptimal means to achieve the objective of evidence‐informed policymaking. The emergence of a range of evidence advisory bodies in recent years is an attempt to address the issue of judicialization alongside the other constitutional and political weaknesses Colombia faces.