The article by Shai Danziger, Jonathan Levav, and Liora Avnaim-Pesso explores whether judicial rulings are solely based on laws and facts or are influenced by extraneous factors. They test the legal realist hypothesis, which suggests that psychological, political, and social factors can affect judicial decisions, often referred to as "justice is what the judge ate for breakfast." The study focuses on parole decisions made by experienced judges in Israel. By analyzing 1,112 judicial rulings over 50 days, the researchers found that the likelihood of a favorable ruling decreases from approximately 65% to nearly zero within each decision session and then abruptly returns to 65% after a food break. This suggests that judges' decisions can be swayed by extraneous variables, such as mental fatigue, which can be mitigated by taking a break to eat. The findings highlight the impact of situational determinants on judicial rulings and support the idea that the law is not always as indeterminate as it seems.The article by Shai Danziger, Jonathan Levav, and Liora Avnaim-Pesso explores whether judicial rulings are solely based on laws and facts or are influenced by extraneous factors. They test the legal realist hypothesis, which suggests that psychological, political, and social factors can affect judicial decisions, often referred to as "justice is what the judge ate for breakfast." The study focuses on parole decisions made by experienced judges in Israel. By analyzing 1,112 judicial rulings over 50 days, the researchers found that the likelihood of a favorable ruling decreases from approximately 65% to nearly zero within each decision session and then abruptly returns to 65% after a food break. This suggests that judges' decisions can be swayed by extraneous variables, such as mental fatigue, which can be mitigated by taking a break to eat. The findings highlight the impact of situational determinants on judicial rulings and support the idea that the law is not always as indeterminate as it seems.