Gleason et al. - Gender Norms in Judicial Decision-Making

Research on judicial behavior often concentrates on vote direction and the presence of female attorneys.
This study examines the impact of gender on both attorney success and judicial decision-making, considering the tension between masculine norms valued in law and feminine norms expected of women.
The study analyzes the emotional content in 601 party briefs and its influence on the Court's majority opinions.
Male justices reportedly evaluate counsel based on compliance with traditional gender norms.
Female justices' opinions are not shaped by gender norms.
The findings question the objectivity of judicial decision-making.

Historically, women were excluded from the legal profession due to perceived inability to handle its rigors.
Women are significantly outnumbered by men at the Bar.
Tension exists between feminine norms and professional norms at the Court.
Professional norms, such as adversarial argument, contradict feminine norms like empathy and consensus building.
Violating either gender or professional norms can lead to sanctions, creating a double bind for female attorneys.
Justice Sotomayor noted that women need to present arguments