The purpose of this study is to explore how a Florida administrative law judge (ALJ) adjudicated the giftedness of one student who was found ineligible to be enrolled in a gifted education program. Specifically, we explore the discourse in an ALJ's final order to uncover how an ALJ navigates through conflict and deconstructs the conflicting expert opinions and special education state statute on the definition of giftedness and then constructs giftedness from these sources to arrive at the final decision. Utilizing qualitative discourse analysis, we explore what this construction can tell us about the interpretation of the nature of giftedness and what counts as data. Findings in this case suggest that the ALJ gives more weight to experience and expertise.