Several landmark cases have shaped the understanding and application of the writ of mandamus in the U.S. legal system. Below are some notable examples:
1. Marbury v. Madison (1803)
USCIS taking too long? Discover how a Mandamus lawsuit can get your case moving.
Visit mandamus.comBackground: This is perhaps the most famous case involving a writ of mandamus. William Marbury had been appointed Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams. His commission was not delivered before Adams left office, and the new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver it.
Ruling: Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion established the principle of judicial review, asserting that the Supreme Court had the authority to review acts of Congress and determine their constitutionality. The Court found that Marbury had a right to his commission but concluded that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus because the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that granted the Court this power was unconstitutional.
Get free and fast advice via WhatsApp for any questions you have!
Contact Us on WhatsAppSignificance: This case established the foundation for the exercise of judicial review in the United States, although it denied the specific use of a writ of mandamus in this instance.
2. Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes (1838)
Background: The case involved the Postmaster General, Amos Kendall, who refused to pay a sum of money to a contractor, Stokes, for mail-carrying services rendered under a contract with the government.
Ruling: The Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus ordering Kendall to pay the money owed under the contract. The Court ruled that executive officers could be compelled by mandamus to perform duties that were purely ministerial and did not involve discretion.
Looking for in-depth legal counsel? Call us or visit our contact page to schedule a paid consultation.
Call Us Visit Our Contact PageSignificance: This case reinforced the principle that mandamus could be used to compel government officials to fulfill their non-discretionary duties.
3. Ex parte United States (1916) (also known as the U.S. v. Judge Trieber)
Background: The landmark case of Ex parte United States revolved around District Judge Jacob Trieber, who, after a defendant was convicted of a serious crime, inexplicably refused to impose a sentence. This refusal raised significant concerns regarding the judicial process and the responsibilities of judges. In response, the United States government sought a writ of mandamus, a legal remedy that compels a lower court or government official to perform their official duties. The case highlighted the tension between judicial discretion and the obligation to uphold the rule of law.
Ruling: In a decisive ruling, the Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus, emphasizing that Judge Trieber had a clear and unequivocal legal duty to impose a sentence following the conviction of the defendant. The Court’s decision underscored the principle that judges are not at liberty to disregard their responsibilities, particularly when a conviction has been established. This ruling reinforced the notion that the judicial system must operate efficiently and that judges must fulfill their roles to maintain public confidence in the legal process.
Significance: The significance of Ex parte United States extends beyond its immediate context, as it affirmed the use of mandamus as a vital tool for ensuring that lower courts adhere to their judicial duties. This case set a precedent for future instances where judicial inaction could undermine the integrity of the legal system. By clarifying the obligations of judges, the ruling served to protect the rights of defendants and uphold the principles of justice. Ultimately, this case remains a critical reference point in discussions about judicial accountability and the mechanisms available to enforce compliance with legal duties.
4. Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia (2004)
Background: Vice President Dick Cheney sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the release of documents related to his energy task force, arguing that the discovery order violated the separation of powers.
Ruling: The Supreme Court denied the writ but provided significant guidance on the standard for issuing mandamus, emphasizing that it should be used only in extraordinary circumstances.
Significance: This case clarified the conditions under which mandamus would be considered appropriate, emphasizing its use in exceptional cases where there is no other adequate means to attain relief.
5. Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. (1980)
Background: Allied Chemical Corp. sought a writ of mandamus to direct the district court to dismiss a lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction.
Ruling: The Supreme Court denied the writ, reiterating that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy reserved for extraordinary circumstances.
Significance: The case underscored the stringent criteria for granting mandamus, reinforcing that it is not a substitute for appeal and is appropriate only when the petitioner has no other adequate means to secure the relief desired and the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable.”
These cases collectively illustrate the critical role that mandamus plays in the U.S. legal system, providing a mechanism to compel government officials and lower courts to fulfill their legal duties, while also emphasizing its use as an extraordinary remedy.
Want to know more? This article is a must-read: https://mandamus.com/2025/04/13/file-mandamus-outside-home-state/
You may find this article especially insightful: https://theanimallawcenter.com/2024/06/12/i485-approved-what-next/
You may find this article especially insightful: https://writofmandamus.com/comparing-waiver-processing-times-across-different-visa-categories/
Q: What are the specific criteria for issuing a writ of mandamus in U.S. legal cases?
A: The criteria for issuing a writ of mandamus in U.S. legal cases include demonstrating that the petitioner has no other adequate means to secure the desired relief, that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable,” and that the case presents extraordinary circumstances. Mandamus is not a substitute for appeal and is reserved for situations where a government official or lower court has failed to perform a clear legal duty.
Get complimentary general advice via email or WhatsApp!
For more in-depth legal counsel, phone or office consultations are available for a flat fee for up to 40 minutes.
Contact Us on WhatsApp Visit Our Contact Page