Aggressive grants by affirm-minded justices

Given that the Supreme Court usually reverses the decision of the court below, why would justices who agree with that decision vote to hear the case? In other words, why would affirm-minded justices vote to grant cert? Scholars refer to such behavior as the outcome prediction strategy. We examine its putative presence on the Vinson and Warren courts because valid and reliable data for these two courts exist. Our study has two purposes: (a) to identify and test the strategic and nonstrategic variables associated with granting cert by affirm-minded justices and (b) to offer evidence regarding whether the justices use outcome prediction. We find that although the well-known nonstrategic determinants of cert matter (e.g., salience and lower court conflict), so also do strategic considerations. We identify these variables and the strength of their impact on what fairly appears to be outcome-prediction voting by affirm-minded justices.