What Is a Writ of Mandamus?

During the contentious lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, organizations in Colorado, Oregon, Maine and other states sought to have Donald Trump’s name removed from state primary ballots by various legal means.

Their arguments were based on Section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states that nobody can hold public office if, after taking an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States,” they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

The plaintiffs believed that Trump had violated the 14th Amendment by his involvement in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. The legal remedy that plaintiffs in Oregon tried to use was a writ of mandamus, which would have forced state election officials to immediately remove Trump’s name from ballots in Oregon.

The Oregon campaign failed, due in part to the U.S. Supreme Court finding that only Congress—not the states—can disqualify candidates for federal offices. But their efforts highlighted how the writ of mandamus, a once-rare legal remedy, still wields great power when properly applied.

The word “mandamus” comes from the Latin term for “we command,” sharing a root with “mandatory.” First developed in England in the 13th century, the writ of mandamus was used by the Court of King’s Bench—a powerful legal body with close ties to the English monarch—to force action on lower courts and local officials when clearly established rights were at stake.

Importantly, the writ of mandamus as developed in England offered no option of return, i.e., no chance for the party subject to the writ to appeal. As it was often used to restore individuals to a public office, it also became known as a writ of restitution.

Because English law prevailed in the pre-Revolution colonies of America, the fledgling United States adopted the writ of mandamus and other features of the English court system, which were soon enshrined in the U.S. Judiciary Act of 1789.

A writ of mandamus played a key role in the 1803 landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, in which the Supreme Court was asked to issue a writ forcing the administration of Thomas Jefferson to honor judicial appointments made by his predecessor, John Adams. (Ultimately, the writ in that case was not issued because the court found that the part of the Judiciary Act on which the writ was based was itself unconstitutional.)

The writ of mandamus remained in the Judiciary Act as it evolved over the centuries, and it was a power granted not only to the U.S. Supreme Court, but also to all federal courts. State Supreme Courts also have the authority to issue writs of mandamus, though each state has different rules over the proper use of the legal remedy.

In years past, the writ of mandamus was a rarely used legal instrument that was meant to be employed only in extraordinary circumstances. Recently, however, the writ of mandamus has been weaponized to fulfill partisan political objectives.

In 2020, plaintiffs in Arizona alleged that phony ballots and misuse of the state’s election system hardware should keep the governor from transmitting election results to the Electoral College. The U.S. District Court, however, concluded that accusations of election fraud “that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court.”

The Arizona plaintiffs then filed an emergency petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, but in 2021 the court denied their petition without issuing an opinion.

And in addition to efforts to ban Trump from state ballots in the 2024 election, Trump himself requested a writ of mandamus from the Georgia Supreme Court in 2023 to impede a special grand jury investigation into possible 2020 election interference. The Georgia Supreme Court denied the effort because Trump had "not shown that this case presents one of those extremely rare circumstances" where a writ of mandamus is justified.