While many scholars have ignored the cases that constitute the total litigational input to the U.S. Supreme Court, some have examined the possibility of a set policy or agenda for gatekeeping,or determination of which cases will be heard.

This study is concerned with the methodological implications of gatekeeping analysis in relation to other studies and Court procedure generally, and the Burger Court from 1971 through 1973 specifically. The data consists of cases listed in the Appellate Docket Index to U.S. Law Week. The study seeks to clarify: 1) the relative strengths of origin and type of case as factors in the decision of the Court to hear a case, 2) the differences in summary and formal bearing policies, and 3) the amount of change or evolution in Court gatekeeping policy during the period.

The findings indicate the presence of an active policy relative to the origin of cases in state or federal courts, while civil litigation was found to have greater access to the Court than criminal cases, linked apparently in part to the findings for civil liberties questions. Tax cases received no consistent treatment in the selection process.

The conclusion indicates that the Burger Court, as of 1973, had developed no set agenda in relation to the factors studied, but does aot dismiss the possibility that if additional factors are studied over a longer period a pattern may emerge.