IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v21y2024i1p174-207.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“They don't let us speak”: Gender, collegiality, and interruptions in deliberations in the Brazilian Supreme Court

Author

Listed:
  • Diego Werneck Arguelhes
  • Juliana Cesario Alvim
  • Rafaela Nogueira
  • Henrique Wang

Abstract

In this paper, we examine a database containing court rulings and debates (acórdãos) of the Brazilian Supreme Court (“STF”) spanning from 1999 to 2018. Our objective is to analyze the relationship between gender and how judges behave when interacting with each other. Specifically, we investigate whether female judges are more likely to be interrupted by their colleagues during oral debates. Our data are built on real‐time public interactions between the judges, as recorded in the Court's transcripts. The results show that female STF judges are interrupted more often than their male counterparts. While male judges display no specific effects, all three female judges in our data display a very significant and positive probability of being interrupted, as compared to their male colleagues participating in the same deliberations. These results show that, even in institutions designed to protect rights of political minorities, including women, gender dynamics, stereotypes and hierarchies can affect the functioning of courts in visible ways, with potential impacts on the rest of the judiciary and the legal profession. They also suggest that merely increasing the number of female judges, without addressing underlying gender dynamics and procedural rules in the judicial decision‐making process, is insufficient to tackle the disadvantages women face within those institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Diego Werneck Arguelhes & Juliana Cesario Alvim & Rafaela Nogueira & Henrique Wang, 2024. "“They don't let us speak”: Gender, collegiality, and interruptions in deliberations in the Brazilian Supreme Court," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 174-207, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:21:y:2024:i:1:p:174-207
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12379
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12379
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12379?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ponczek, Vladimir & Grezzana, Stefânia, 2012. "Gender Bias at the Brazilian Superior Labor Court," Brazilian Review of Econometrics, Sociedade Brasileira de Econometria - SBE, vol. 32(1), March.
    2. Scott W. Desposato & Matthew C. Ingram & Osmar P. Lannes, 2015. "Power, Composition, and Decision Making: The Behavioral Consequences of Institutional Reform on Brazil’s Supremo Tribunal Federal," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(3), pages 534-567.
    3. Christina L. Boyd & Lee Epstein & Andrew D. Martin, 2010. "Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 389-411, April.
    4. Kathlene, Lyn, 1994. "Power and Influence in State Legislative Policymaking: The Interaction of Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 560-576, September.
    5. Alba Ruibal, 2015. "Social movements and constitutional politics in Latin America: reconfiguring alliances, framings and legal opportunities in the judicialisation of abortion rights in Brazil," Contemporary Social Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 375-385, October.
    6. Tali Mendelberg & Christopher F. Karpowitz & Nicholas Goedert, 2014. "Does Descriptive Representation Facilitate Women's Distinctive Voice? How Gender Composition and Decision Rules Affect Deliberation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(2), pages 291-306, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. O’Brien, Diana Z. & Rickne, Johanna, 2016. "Gender Quotas and Women's Political Leadership," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(1), pages 112-126, February.
    2. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    3. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    4. Shamena Anwar & Patrick Bayer & Randi Hjalmarsson, 2019. "Politics in the Courtroom: Political Ideology and Jury Decision Making," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(3), pages 834-875.
    5. Baskaran, Thushyanthan & Hessami, Zohal, 2022. "The gender recontest gap in elections," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    6. Lone Engbo Christiansen & Ms. Huidan Huidan Lin & Ms. Joana Pereira & Petia Topalova & Ms. Rima A Turk, 2016. "Gender Diversity in Senior Positions and Firm Performance: Evidence from Europe," IMF Working Papers 2016/050, International Monetary Fund.
    7. Richard Holden & Michael Keane & Matthew Lilley, 2021. "Peer effects on the United States Supreme Court," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), pages 981-1019, July.
    8. Migheli, Matteo, 2022. "Lost in election. How different electoral systems translate the voting gender gap into gender representation bias," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    9. Fałkowski, Jan & Lewkowicz, Jacek, 2021. "Are Adjudication Panels Strategically Selected? The Case of Constitutional Court in Poland," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    10. Chen, Daniel L., 2016. "Priming Ideology: Why Presidential Elections Affect U.S. Judges," TSE Working Papers 16-681, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Aug 2016.
    11. Pierre Bentata & Romain Espinosa & Yolande Hiriart, 2019. "Correction Activities by France’s Supreme Courts and Control over their Dockets," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 129(2), pages 169-204.
    12. Gretchen Ritter & Nicole Mellow, 2000. "The State of Gender Studies in Political Science," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 571(1), pages 121-134, September.
    13. Christoph Engel, 2024. "The German Constitutional Court – Activist, but not Partisan?," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2024_04, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    14. Thomas J. Miles, 2012. "Racial Disparities in Wiretap Applications before Federal Judges," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 419-458.
    15. Tilko Swalve, 2022. "Does Group Familiarity Improve Deliberations in Judicial Teams? Evidence from the German Federal Court of Justice," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 223-249, March.
    16. Samantha Bielen & Wim Marneffe & Peter Grajzl & Valentina Dimitrova-Grajzl, 2018. "The Duration of Judicial Deliberation: Evidence from Belgium," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 174(2), pages 303-333, June.
    17. Robert S. Erikson, 2022. "Appellate court assignments as a natural experiment: Gender panel effects in sex discrimination cases," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 423-446, June.
    18. Matthew Dahl & Devan N. Patel & Matthew E. K. Hall, 2021. "The Dogma Within? Examining Religious Bias in Private Title VII Claims," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 742-764, December.
    19. Andrzej Baranski & D.J. da Cunha Batista Geraldes & Ada Kovaliukaite & James Tremewan, 2021. "Experiment on Gender Representation in Majoritarian Bargaining," Working Papers 2102, Utrecht School of Economics.
    20. Barros, Henrique M., 2021. "Neither at the cutting edge nor in a patent-friendly environment: Appropriating the returns from innovation in a less developed economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:21:y:2024:i:1:p:174-207. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.