# Writ of Mandamus A **writ of mandamus** ("we command") is a court order compelling a government official, or a lower court, to perform a duty the law requires. It is an **extraordinary** remedy. It is available only when the duty is **ministerial**, meaning the official has no discretion to refuse; when the right to relief is "clear and indisputable"; and when no other adequate remedy exists. Those standards come from *Cheney v. U.S. District Court* (2004), the Vice President's energy-task-force case. It shows up in the KB in two very different ways. ## 1. Against officials: forcing the ministerial act This is the classic use, and it goes back to the Constitution's founding case. In [[Marbury v. Madison]] (1803), William Marbury asked the Supreme Court for mandamus ordering Secretary of State [[James Madison]] to deliver his commission. The Court held he was entitled to it, but that Congress could not give the Court original jurisdiction to issue it. In federal court today, 28 U.S.C. § 1361 lets district courts compel federal officers to perform duties they owe. In state courts, mandamus is the standard remedy against a local official who refuses a mandatory act. - **Election certification.** Because certifying results is a ministerial duty, a court can order a county board to sign. Every post-2020 certification refusal that reached a court has been resolved this way. See [[Election Certification]] and [[How a Midterm Election Is Certified]]. - **Seating the House.** In [[Michael Luttig]]'s September 2026 scenario, members-elect left off the House roll would seek mandamus ordering the Clerk ([[Kevin McCumber]]) to enroll them. That remedy would run straight into the justiciability questions at [[Refusal to Seat]]. - **The limit.** Mandamus can't reach discretionary choices. In the 2025 foreign-aid impoundment fight, the Supreme Court signaled that mandamus was not available to force spending ([[Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition]]). ## 2. Against judges: the appellate shortcut Under the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651), a court of appeals can issue mandamus to a district judge, stepping in before any final judgment. This is where mandamus has become a political weapon, and across both Trump administrations it has mostly worked in the government's favor: - **In re Flynn (2020).** A D.C. Circuit panel, 2–1 with Judge Neomi Rao writing, ordered Judge Emmet Sullivan to grant the Justice Department's motion to drop the [[Michael Flynn]] case. The full court vacated that order in August 2020. - **Emoluments (2019).** A Fourth Circuit panel granted mandamus in July 2019 ordering dismissal of the Maryland and D.C. emoluments suit. The full court vacated it in 2020 (see [[Emoluments Clauses]]). - **Boasberg contempt (2025–26).** Two D.C. Circuit mandamus orders shut down Judge [[James Boasberg]]'s criminal-contempt inquiry into the March 2025 deportation flights. On Aug. 8, 2025, a panel vacated his probable-cause finding. On April 14, 2026, Judges Rao and Walker ordered him to terminate the proceedings, over Judge Childs's dissent. See [[Judicial Independence]]. The pattern is that an extraordinary writ, meant for clear usurpations of power, has become a routine way for an administration to take a case away from a trial judge before any record is built. ## See Also - [[Election Certification]] · [[How a Midterm Election Is Certified]] · [[Refusal to Seat]] - [[Marbury v. Madison]] · [[John Marshall]] · [[James Boasberg]] · [[Judicial Independence]] - [[Administrative Stay]] · [[Shadow Docket]] · [[Terminology Hub]]