Mandamus is Latin for "We command." In the justice system, a writ of mandamus is an order from a superior court ordering a lower court, government institution, or corporation to do (or to forbid from doing) a specific act that said court, institution, or corporation is obliged to do under the law. In the United States, writs of mandamus from a higher court to a lower one, like a writ from the Supreme Court to a Court of Appeals, District Court, Circuit Court, or to a government institution like a District Attorney, has largely been phased out in the criminal justice system. Writs of mandamus are usually only seen in corporate and family law. However, superior courts in the criminal justice system still have the authority to issue a writ to a lower court or institution, if the situation calls for it.
A few examples of mandamus writs being the Skokie case; in 1977, a chapter of the Klu Klux Klan wanted to do an organized march in the town of Skokie, Illinois, which is a largely Jewish community and home to a Holocaust museum. The locals filed for an injunction against the march, which was granted by a judge in the Cook County Circuit Court. On behalf of the KKK, lawyers with the ACLU filed an emergency appeal to lift the injunction with both the Illinois Court of Appeals and the Illinois Supreme Court on the grounds of the injunction violating their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly; in a statement, the ACLU said, while they abhorred the KKK's beliefs, they would defend anyone whose civil rights were being violated. Neither court responded to the motion, essentially hoping the KKK would go away and do their march elsewhere. This led to the Supreme Court of the United States issuing a writ of mandamus to the Illinois Supreme Court, ordering them to grant the emergency hearing; the court said it was critical for courts to immediately deal with accusations of constitutional violations, saying that, while they detest the KKK and everything they stand for, denying a group's civil rights because of those reasons is a slippery slope into tyranny. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals, who ordered the injunction lifted.
Another more recent example is a 2023 lawsuit in California challenging the constitutionality of the state's ban on standard capacity firearm magazines; the lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court on the grounds that banning the most commonly-used magazine capacities in the country violates the Second Amendment. Not wanting to deal with the issue, the court continually refused to hear the case. This led to a motion for a writ of mandamus being filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; the Appellate Court granted the motion and issued a writ of mandamus, ordering the Superior Court to hear the case forthwith. The court determined this matter needed to be decided by a higher court, and it forwarded the case to the California Court of Appeals for the Third District, who determined the magazine ban to be unconstitutional. Although, their ruling was overturned by the California Supreme Court, who ruled that, while magazines have a constitutional protection, the Second Amendment's regulation clause allows for restrictions to be placed on them. As of 2025, there are two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of magazine bans under the Second Amendment pending in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; as well as one pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It is expected these cases will be combined into one single case to be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States sometime in 2026 or 2027.
