The impact of maleness on judicial decision making: masculinity, chivalry, and immigration appeals

Evidence of gendered decision making by judges has been mixed at best. We argue that this is a result of a narrow focus on how female judges differ from male judges. This treats women as the “other,” and the primary object of study is often to determine why female judicial behavior differs from the “norm” of male behavior. We depart from this tradition by using male-centered theories to derive and test hypotheses about maleness and the interactive effect of judge gender and litigant gender in appellate decision making. Drawing on findings from an original dataset of immigration appeals, we find evidence that gender biases manifest themselves in patterns of appellate decision making among all-male panels. Despite our predictions, female judges may also demonstrate evidence of these biases