Professors Kagan and Marouf, in collaboration with UNLV Assistant Professor of Political Science Rebecca Gill, were featured on the Wall Street Journal blog in a June 12 post titled “In Federal Appeals Courts, Chivalry Is Not Dead.” In the article, which highlighted findings from the group’s research paper titled “Chivalry, Masculinity, and the Importance of Maleness to Judicial Decision Making,” the professors looked at a number of immigration cases to examine judicial decision-making based on gender.
The article reads: “The researchers expected to find support for chivalry theory (men view women as damsels in distress who need their protection, so all-male panels will be generous with female litigants) and masculinity theory (men are taught they shouldn’t be vulnerable or emotional, so judges will be harsher on male litigants who, by virtue of pleading for residency, show vulnerability). They were right. In the study, women litigants fared ‘significantly better’ in front of all-male panels of judges than they did in front of mixed-gender panels, while male litigants fared far worse in front of all-male panels of judges than they did in front of mixed-gender panels.”
Professor Kagan has written several of the most widely cited articles in the fields of refugee and asylum law. His research on credibility assessment in asylum cases has been repeatedly relied on by federal appellate courts and, according to a 2012 commentary, has "guided most subsequent research and analysis on the topic."
Drawing on her extensive experience representing individuals before the Immigration Courts, Board of Immigration Appeals, and U.S. Courts of Appeals, Professor Marouf's research probes various problems involved in adjudicating immigration cases at all levels.
