This project seeks to understand whether and how women judges differ from peer men during oral argument, specifically as it pertains to interruption behavior, at the level of the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Existing research on interruptions at oral argument fails to consider the underlying valence and purpose of individual interruptions (e.g., Feldman and Gill 2019; Jacobi and Schweers 2017). Specifically, sociologists in other group-deliberation settings have noted that interruptions can be either positive—supporting the interrupted speaker—or negative—undermining them (Karpowitz and Mendelberg 2014). I propose that women judges will affect a more collaborative speech style, tending to use more positive interruptions while their colleagues who are men might use more negative interruptions.