This article aims to shed light on the impact of trials on the structure of cosmetic surgery in France in the interwar period, and more specifically on the argumentative strategy these surgeons used to justify their therapeutic merits. The significant surge in the number of articles and books devoted to cosmetic surgery published during the court hearings reflects the growing professional and social interest in the 'scandalous' practice. Resorting to the reading grid used by pragmatic sociologists is a way to take the surgeons defending or practising cosmetic surgery to their word. The analysis of the stance adopted by the surgeons will be twofold: they are quite revealing of a way of constraining cosmetic surgery but they also help bring to light what is at stake in the medical arena and what drove doctors to support a denigrated practice.