Correction to “Temperature and Decisions: Evidence from 207,000 Court Cases” and Reply to Spamann

This paper evidenced the sensitivity of US immigration judge decisions to temperature in the city of arbitration on the date of a case's completion. This note serves to correct errors noted since publication. The results from both the main linear specifications are qualitatively unchanged, with estimated treatment effects similar in size to the original and retaining statistical significance at conventional levels. Some secondary results lose significance with the erosion of sample size. We also acknowledge the additional finding by Spamann (2022) with respect to external validity. (JEL K37, K41, Q54)