Writ of prohibition
This step usually comes after earlier rungs
You have not marked these earlier steps complete: Direct appeal. This remedy is normally available only after them. Confirm you have exhausted the lower rungs (or that an exception applies) before relying on this one.
What this is
Mandamus’s mirror image: instead of ordering a lower court/official to ACT, prohibition orders it to STOP — to refrain from exceeding its jurisdiction or authority. Like mandamus it is an extraordinary writ under the All Writs Act (or a state equivalent).
Where it sits in the ladder
Used when a lower tribunal is about to act without power and an ordinary appeal later would not undo the harm. Same "clear right / no adequate alternative" bar as mandamus.
What "burning" this option means
If an ordinary appeal can fix the problem, prohibition is refused. It is not a shortcut around the appellate ladder.
Who the respondents are
Name the official, court, or agency head that owes the duty (e.g. an agency's Administrator or Secretary, or the lower-court judge for appellate mandamus). For a federal agency, the head is the proper respondent; the U.S. Attorney and DOJ defend. State the office by title. See your state Attorney General for state officials, and Regulations to identify the agency.
Generate: Petition for extraordinary writ (mandamus / prohibition) — required fields
This is a fill-in-the-blank scaffold of the sections your document needs. It is AI-generated structure, not a completed filing and not legal advice — fill each field with your own case’s facts, or take it to an attorney or your court’s self-help center.
Court
The full name of the court you are filing in (e.g. "United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit").
Parties
Who is who on appeal — Appellant/Petitioner vs. Appellee/Respondent (name the party bringing the challenge first).
Case / docket number
The lower court’s case number, and the new appellate number once assigned.
Caption
The formatted heading block: court, parties, case number, and the title of the document.
Title
e.g. "Petition for Writ of Mandamus" naming the official/court/agency as respondent.
The clear, non-discretionary duty
The specific legal duty the respondent is REQUIRED to perform (with the statute/rule that imposes it).
Your clear right & standing
Why you have a clear right to have that duty performed.
No other adequate remedy
Why an ordinary appeal or other remedy cannot fix the problem — the hardest element.
Statutory basis for the writ
The statute granting the power — 28 U.S.C. § 1361, the All Writs Act (§ 1651), and for agencies the APA (5 U.S.C. § 706(1)).
Unreasonable delay (agency cases)
For an agency sitting on a petition, address the six TRAC factors (TRAC v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70).
Relief requested
The specific order you want the court to issue against the respondent.
Certificate of compliance
A signed statement that the brief meets the length/format limits (word or page count, font).
Certificate of service
A signed statement of the date and manner you served every other party with a copy.
Format & length rules
- Federal appellate mandamus is governed by Fed. R. App. P. 21 (petition, service on the respondent judge, answer)
Fed. R. App. P. 21 - State mandamus/prohibition procedure and the proper court VARY — check your state’s rules — varies by state; confirm in your state’s rules
Governing statutes
Federal source of the writ 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act)
Governing authorities (verified)
Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Administration 878 F.2d 1458 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
The petitioner had to seek a writ of mandamus to force the DEA to act on his petition, and the D.C. Circuit’s review sent the scheduling question back for the agency to address — the classic posture of using an extraordinary writ when an agency will not act. (The court’s ultimate ruling rejected the religious-use exemption on the merits; the mandamus point is the procedural lesson, not a holding that courts will always compel the DEA.)
Telecommunications Research & Action Center (TRAC) v. FCC 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
The source of the six "TRAC factors" federal courts use to decide whether agency delay is "unreasonable" enough to compel action — the practical test behind a mandamus / § 706(1) petition against a stalling agency.
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 542 U.S. 55 (2004)
The Supreme Court held that a court can compel agency action under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) only when the agency failed to take a DISCRETE action it was legally REQUIRED to take — the outer limit on "compel agency action" mandamus.
Cases on point (live · CourtListener)
In Re Petition for Writ of Prohibitionpublic domain
312 Md. 280 (1988) 539 A.2d 664 IN RE PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND/OR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF. Misc. No. 27 September Term, 1986. Court of Appeals of Maryland. April 8, 1988. Valerie V. Cloutier, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, for appellant. George E. Burns, Jr., As
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE § PETITION OF JAMES ARTHUR § No. 436, 2022 BIGGINS FOR A WRIT OF § PROHIBITON § Submitted: January 5, 2023 Decided: January 24, 2023 ORDER On December 20, 2022, the Court denied the petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Th
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE § PETITION OF DERRICK J. SMITH § No. 431, 2025 FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION § Submitted: November 19, 2025 Decided: February 2, 2026 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. ORDER After consideration of the petition for a writ of prohibition and the State’s
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE § PETITION OF DETLEF § No. 271, 2025 HARTMANN FOR A WRIT OF § PROHIBITION § Submitted: September 11, 2025 Decided: November 17, 2025 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. ORDER
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE § PETITION OF JAMES W. RILEY § No. 363, 2025 FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION § Submitted: September 29, 2025 Decided: October 30, 2025 Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices. ORDER After consideration of the petition for a writ of p
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION § OF JUDEAU S. BROWN JR. FOR A § No. 408, 2021 WRIT OF PROHIBITION § § Submitted: January 18, 2022 Decided: March 24, 2022 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. ORDER After careful consideration of the petition
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE § PETITION OF PIERRE J. DOWNS § No. 374, 2025 FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION § § Submitted: October 9, 2025 Decided: December 12, 2025 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices. ORDER
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE § PETITION OF CANDIDO § No. 226, 2026 ANTONIO FELIX REYNOLDS § FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS § AND/OR PROHIBITION § Submitted: June 3, 2026 Decided: June 5, 2026 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Jus
State ex rel. Meek v. Smithpublic domain
GARY M. GAERTNER, Presiding Judge. Relator, Ellen E. Meek, filed a petition for writ of prohibition requesting respondent be restrained from enforcing his July 13, 1998 order transferring the underlying cause, captioned In re Marriage of Meek, Cause No. 98FC-3574, to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County. Defendant, Gary P. Meek, filed an answer and suggestions in opposition to the petition on behalf of respondent. I
Matter of Writ of Prohibitionpublic domain
912 P.2d 634 (1995) 128 Idaho 266 In the Matter of the WRIT OF PROHIBITION ENTITLED "BALLOT TITLE CHALLENGE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED." Joanne BUCHIN and Elizabeth Barker Brandt, Petitioners, v. Alan G. LANCE, Attorney General of the State of Idaho, and Pete Cenarrusa, Secretary of State of the State of Idaho, Respondents. No. 22395. Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, November, 19
Rel: October 25, 2024 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE § PETITION OF JAMES L. MARTIN § No. 59, 2022 FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS § AND PROHIBITION § Submitted: March 8, 2022 Decided: May 17, 2022 Before VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices. ORDER After consideration of the petition for writs of
REL: April 7, 2023 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE § PETITION OF DIAMONTE § No. 432, 2023 TAYLOR FOR A WRIT OF § MANDAMUS § Submitted: December 2, 2023 Decided: December 5, 2023 Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices. ORDER
Rel: March 31, 2023 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM,
Appeal of State of New Hampshirepublic domain
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by email at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet
Rel: May 19, 2023 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 20
Rel: March 3, 2023 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2
Ex parte D.A. and M.A. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUSpublic domain
Rel: March 24, 2023 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM
State ex rel. Anderson v. Warren Bd. of Health Dept.public domain
[Cite as State ex rel. Anderson v. Warren Bd. of Health Dept., 2024-Ohio-4627.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY STATE ex rel. CASE NO. 2024-T-0062 BRIAN L. ANDERSON, Relator, Original Action for Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition