I develop a formal model of the interaction between auditing by the Supreme Court (certiorari) and compliance by the lower courts, presenting three challenges to the existing literature. First, I show that even discretionary certiorari (the Court can choose which cases to hear) only goes so far in inducing compliance. Second, the literature often treats the Court as a unitary actor, ignoring the Rule of Four (only four votes are needed to grant certiorari). This rule is generally assumed to limit majoritarian dominance - this is a puzzle given that the rule itself is subject to majority control. I show that it actually increases majority power by increasing lower court compliance. Finally, while sincere behavior is often taken for granted at the Supreme Court level, I show that potential non-compliance creates heretofore unrecognized incentives for the justices to conceal their true preferences, so as to induce greater compliance. They can exploit even minimal uncertainty to manipulate asymmetric information in a signaling game of strategic reputation building, further increasing compliance under the Rule of Four.