Judicial decisions are not solely based on laws and facts, as legal formalism suggests. Legal realists argue that psychological, political, and social factors influence judicial rulings. This study tests the idea that judicial decisions are affected by extraneous factors, such as the judge's breakfast. The researchers recorded the two daily food breaks of experienced judges, which segmented the day into three decision sessions. They found that the percentage of favorable rulings dropped gradually from approximately 65% to nearly zero within each session and then jumped back to approximately 65% after a break. This suggests that judicial rulings can be swayed by extraneous variables that should have no bearing on legal decisions. The study analyzed 1,112 judicial rulings over 50 days by eight Jewish-Israeli judges. The data included legal variables such as the severity of the crime, months served, and whether a rehabilitation program was available. The judges' decisions were classified into two categories: "accept request" and "reject request." The results showed that the likelihood of a favorable ruling was greater at the beginning of the day or after a food break than later in the sequence of cases. This pattern was evident in the data, which showed that the probability of a favorable ruling steadily declined from approximately 65% to nearly zero and then jumped back up to approximately 65% after a break. The study used logistic regression to control for the idiosyncratic tendencies of each judge and to examine the effect of the ordinal position of a case on the judge's decision. The results confirmed that the pattern in Fig. 1 held even while controlling for the legal attributes of the case and for the overall tendency of the judges to rule against the prisoner as the number of cases before them mounted. The results were nearly identical when the analysis was restricted to parole requests and when the two most frequently occurring judges were excluded. The study also found that the likelihood of a favorable ruling was greater at the beginning of a session than at the end. This was supported by nested model tests, which indicated that adding the ordinal position variables led to better model fit. The results suggest that judicial decisions can be influenced by whether the judge took a break to eat. The study also found that favorable rulings took significantly longer than unfavorable rulings, and written verdicts of favorable rulings were significantly longer than those of unfavorable rulings. The severity of the prisoner's crime and prison time served tended not to exert an effect on rulings, nor did sex and ethnicity. The lack of a significant effect of prisoner ethnicity indicates that the Jewish-Israeli judges in our sample treated prisoners equally regardless of ethnicity. The study also found that the likelihood of a favorable ruling was greater at the beginning of a session than at the end, and that the effect of the ordinal position of a case on the judge's decision was consistent across all judges. The study concludes that judicial decisions can be influenced by extraneous variables, which supports the growing body of evidence that points toJudicial decisions are not solely based on laws and facts, as legal formalism suggests. Legal realists argue that psychological, political, and social factors influence judicial rulings. This study tests the idea that judicial decisions are affected by extraneous factors, such as the judge's breakfast. The researchers recorded the two daily food breaks of experienced judges, which segmented the day into three decision sessions. They found that the percentage of favorable rulings dropped gradually from approximately 65% to nearly zero within each session and then jumped back to approximately 65% after a break. This suggests that judicial rulings can be swayed by extraneous variables that should have no bearing on legal decisions. The study analyzed 1,112 judicial rulings over 50 days by eight Jewish-Israeli judges. The data included legal variables such as the severity of the crime, months served, and whether a rehabilitation program was available. The judges' decisions were classified into two categories: "accept request" and "reject request." The results showed that the likelihood of a favorable ruling was greater at the beginning of the day or after a food break than later in the sequence of cases. This pattern was evident in the data, which showed that the probability of a favorable ruling steadily declined from approximately 65% to nearly zero and then jumped back up to approximately 65% after a break. The study used logistic regression to control for the idiosyncratic tendencies of each judge and to examine the effect of the ordinal position of a case on the judge's decision. The results confirmed that the pattern in Fig. 1 held even while controlling for the legal attributes of the case and for the overall tendency of the judges to rule against the prisoner as the number of cases before them mounted. The results were nearly identical when the analysis was restricted to parole requests and when the two most frequently occurring judges were excluded. The study also found that the likelihood of a favorable ruling was greater at the beginning of a session than at the end. This was supported by nested model tests, which indicated that adding the ordinal position variables led to better model fit. The results suggest that judicial decisions can be influenced by whether the judge took a break to eat. The study also found that favorable rulings took significantly longer than unfavorable rulings, and written verdicts of favorable rulings were significantly longer than those of unfavorable rulings. The severity of the prisoner's crime and prison time served tended not to exert an effect on rulings, nor did sex and ethnicity. The lack of a significant effect of prisoner ethnicity indicates that the Jewish-Israeli judges in our sample treated prisoners equally regardless of ethnicity. The study also found that the likelihood of a favorable ruling was greater at the beginning of a session than at the end, and that the effect of the ordinal position of a case on the judge's decision was consistent across all judges. The study concludes that judicial decisions can be influenced by extraneous variables, which supports the growing body of evidence that points to