Setting the Social Agenda: Deciding to Review High-Profile Cases at the Supreme Court

Every year, the United States Supreme Court decides a small handful of high-profile cases that tend to define the Court’s Term, and also disproportionately shape its perceived role in American life. These cases, which may present critical struggles over the distribution of political power, as well as socially divisive issues such as religious freedom, free speech, property rights, abortion, and civil rights, not only determine how the public views the Court, but can also frame the broader cultural debate by pushing these issues to the forefront of political discourse. The Court’s decisions on whether and when to review these more politically charged cases thus have significant ramifications for the Court and for the country’s social agenda. When the Court decides to hear a case involving gay rights, for example, the Court immediately raises the salience of that issue, and potentially places it in the center of the political debate. Quite apart from the Court’s eventual resolution of that particular case on its merits, the very determination to hear oral argument and decide the case stands as an influential landmark in its own right. In this Article, we consider whether the Justices act differently in deciding to grant these high-profile cases than they do in more ordinary cases. In reviewing petitions for certiorari, the Justices undoubtedly recognize that certain types of cases present more ideologically charged