Although thousands of petitions seeking review by the Supreme Court are filed each year, the justices only accept about 150 or fewer for plenary review, with perhaps a few hundred more disposed of summarily. Because of this low acceptance rate scholars have long thought that the justices must use some strategy or process to reduce their workload to manageable levels. Although the examination of agenda setting on the Supreme Court is of continuing interest to judicial scholars, previous studies have usually focused only on cert petitions, specific issues, particular terms, or sampling for their data collection. A more comprehensive examination of the cases filed before the Supreme Court will provide a clearer picture of how the justices set their agenda.
Drawing from an ongoing database project this study examines all cases filed before the Burger Court (1969 to 1985 Terms) on its appellate docket. The specific question addressed in this paper is whether cases that were reviewed by only a single lower court were treated differently by the Court in terms of the review decision. The results show that although cases with the same source and origin courts had a higher acceptance rate than other cases, there were differences between state and federal courts, as well as differences between courts at both the state and federal levels.