U Iowa Home Page

Political Science

Contact Info

347 Schaeffer Hall

319-335-2348

timothy-hagle@uiowa.edu

Twitter: @ProfHagle

Fall 2025 Office Hours

Tue & Th: 4:45-6:15

Mailing Address

Dept of Political Science

341 Schaeffer Hall

20 E. Washington Street

The University of Iowa

Iowa City, Iowa 52242

Posted first seven papers in the Burger Court Agenda Setting Series.

Posted updated Prelaw FAQ for UI students

Posted syllabi for Spring 2026 courses (POLI:1120 and POLI:3120)

Posted evaluations for Spring 2025 courses (POLI:1120 and POLI:3120).

Posted updates to 12 papers in Iowa Voting Series for 2024 election data

New Book: Iowa Votes, updated and expanded 3d edition, published for Kindle devices.

New Book, Riding the Caucus Rollercoaster 2024, published in paperback and for Kindle devices.

New Book, Supreme Court Agenda Setting: The Warren Court, published for Kindle devices and computers with Kindle reader.

My books

$9.99 Kindle ebook

The papers that follow are a series of papers I have written regarding agenda setting on the Burger Court. The papers on Burger Court agenda setting follow the pattern and topics of those I wrote on the Vinson and Warren Courts’ agenda setting. As each paper was completed updates and corrections sometimes changed a few of the specific numbers presented in papers that came earlier in the series. Even so, the general results for each paper did not change. The papers for the Vinson Court were eventually combined into a book titled, Supreme Court Agenda Setting: The Vinson Court (available on Amazon.com). The papers for the Warren Court were combined in a book titled Supreme Court Agenda Setting: The Warren Court (also available on Amazon.com). The paper for the Burger Court will be combined in a book to be titled Supreme Court Agenda Setting: The Burger Court. I expect it will be available on Amazon.com in the summer of 2026. The book will use the final numbers after all the corrections and updates.

Agenda Setting on the Burger Court Paper 1: State and Federal Circuit Differences


Agenda setting of the United States Supreme Court is a matter of continuing interest to judicial scholars. Previous studies have examined several aspects of the agenda setting process. These studies have usually focused on 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. To that end, this study will examine all cases on the Burger Court’s appellate docket. As a first cut with this data, this study will examine four empirical questions related to cases filed before the Supreme Court: 1) is there a difference in acceptance rates between state and federal cases, 2) is there a difference in acceptance rates between federal circuits, 3) is there a difference in acceptance rates for state cases in the federal circuits, and 4) is there a difference in acceptance rates between state and federal cases from the same federal circuits?

Agenda Setting on the Burger Court Paper 2: Certiorari and Appeal on the Burger Court Agenda

Agenda setting of the United States Supreme Court is a matter of continuing interest to judicial scholars. Most studies of agenda setting focus on the Court’s exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction. The assumption is that cases on appeal (as opposed to certiorari) are obligatory, which means that factors affecting the discretionary decisions on certiorari petitions would not be in play. This assumption, that cases on appeal are treated differently than those on certiorari, has not been tested. The purpose of this study is to take some initial steps in a determination of whether, and to what extent, the Court treats cases on appeal and certiorari differently in terms of the review decision, decision on the merits, and whether the Court summarily disposed of the case. The 17 terms of the Burger Court’s appellate docket provide an interesting period of the Court’s caseload for examination. Results show that although there are clear differences in the treatment of the two types of cases, there still may not be sufficient justification for the exclusion of appeals from studies of the Court’s agenda setting.

Agenda Setting on the Burger Court Paper 3: Workload as a Factor

Judicial scholars have long been interested in Supreme Court agenda setting. Political histories and biographies touch on the topic in relatively general terms and a long line of studies have examined factors related to why some petitions for writs of certiorari are granted review by the Court and others not. Because of the sheer number of certiorari petitions filed each term, most scholars sampled the data. Despite the many studies that have examined various aspects of the Court’s agenda setting, my focus here is on a specific aspect of the agenda setting process that has not yet been addressed in the literature. Although legal considerations are clearly important, the Court’s workload may affect the justices’ agenda setting as well. In this paper I assume that the justices are consistent in the approach they use to cope with their workload. Even so, it is the workload that tends to vary and this leads us to the central question of this study.

In this paper I examine all cases filed on the Burger Court’s appellate docket. Using charts to illustrate the data and difference of means tests to determine the significance of the results I find that that workload does seem to affect certain aspects of the Court’s agenda setting, particularly when appeals and petitions for certiorari are considered separately.

Agenda Setting on the Burger Court Paper 4: Related Cases in Agenda Setting

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 maybe a few hundred more disposed of summarily. Thus, 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). The specific question addressed in this paper is whether “related” cases have an increased chance of being accepted for review by the Supreme Court. The results show that related cases have a statistically significant higher chance of being granted review by the Supreme Court. This finding is shown to be quite robust when examined in relation to four additional factors.

Agenda Setting on the Burger Court Paper 5: Lower Court Reversals and Dissents as Factors

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). The specific question addressed in this paper is whether lower court reversals or disagreement increase the likelihood of a case being accepted for review by the Supreme Court. The results show that for cases coming from both state and federal courts the presence of a reversal or dissent below significantly increases the likelihood of the Supreme Court accepting the case for review.

Agenda Setting on the Burger Court Paper 6: Court Level as a Factor

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). The specific question addressed in this paper is whether a form of ripening occurs based on the level of the lower court (trial court, court of appeals, state supreme court) or the number of judges on a lower court which increases the chances for acceptance by the Supreme Court. The results show that ripening seems to be a factor for cases coming to the Supreme Court from lower state courts but not for the cases coming from lower federal courts. In fact, cases coming from federal district courts have a much higher acceptance rate than those from federal courts of appeal, regardless of whether the case was from a three-judge or single-judge district court.

Agenda Setting on the Burger Court Paper 7: Government Parties as a Factor

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). The specific question addressed in this paper is whether the presence of government parties in a case affects the chances for acceptance by the Supreme Court. The results, which prove to be rather robust, show that they do. In various combinations, federal or state/local government entities, as appellant or appellee, in criminal or noncriminal cases, are associated with a statistically significant difference in the acceptance rate by the Court.