Question I was considering was whether evolution had a goal in this? I guess it did. Nervous-system-noise helps explore that state space and extreme states (hunger, sleep deprivation) lower inhibition, leading to greater exploration of the decision space. Biochemical/genetic mediators of more efficient (in aggregate across all humans ever) search algorithms.
Those despotic genes! Programming us, the nerve of them! :) Hahaha :)
In terms of whether that's large enough for a ruling, I guess it'd depend on all the pertinent factors: the rule, the judge, the context, the level and nature of discomfort, and the definition of significant. Within that multid space, I think, contrary to you, there's ample chance to produce large effects.
Mitigating this is perhaps how similar many judges routines are. What might really be strong support would be some control, and putting some jurists on more extreme diets/routines hahaah! :) Of course, only in mock trials tho, as otherwise that would be unethical.
Do study support that it operates as blinker on complexity or even impacts cognition, besides the judgements or increased "irrationality"? As pointed out increased irrationality, can be a boon for lateral search space exploration, and could be argued to lead discovery of better judgements. Similarly, increased focus on core tenets by carving off complexity could also lead to better performance.
Also, in legal cases, with potential for politicization of key issues, what's deemed irrational may simply be heretical from one ideology. Unsure the specifics in this case, so would have to consider such factors, too.