Abstract:
Heyes and Saberian (2019) finds that U.S. immigration judges are less likely to grant asylum in cases heard on warmer days. Spamann (2022) corrects errors in that paper, enlarges the sample, proposes additional revisions, and strongly challenges the conclusion. In a rejoinder, Heyes and Saberian (2022) incorporates many of these comments, yet maintains that "results…are qualitatively un-changed." Experimenting with a new academic-literary form, I review the case as a judge might, to offer a take that is more independent and legible than the partisans can offer. I agree with Spamann (2022): the only viable explanation for the combined evidence is publication bias or other forms of result filtration.