The importance of agenda setting to understanding U.S. Supreme Court decision making cannot be gainsaid. Much information exists about cases the Court reviews, but not about cases the Court does not review. As a result, many studies of Supreme Court agenda setting have focused on cases that have already been granted review. We have constructed a stratified random sample of petititoned lower cases denied review by the Burger Court (1969-86). We analyse the characteristics and treatment of all lower-court cases--accepted and rejected--involving amici curiae, finding that justices' policy preferences explain little of the Court's behavior; rather, it seems that legal--and perhaps strategic--considerations explain the justices' behavior.