WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Certiorari is a Latin word meaning "to be informed of, or to be made certain in regard
to". It is also the name given to certain appellate proceedings for re-examination of actions
of a trial court, or inferior appeals court. The U.S. Supreme Court still uses the term
certiorari in the context of appeals.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari. (informally called "Cert Petition.") A document
which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to review the
decision of a lower court. It includes a list of the parties, a statement of the facts of the
case, the legal questions presented for review, and arguments as to why the Court should
grant the writ.
Writ of Certiorari. A decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower
court.
Cert. Denied. The abbreviation used in legal citations to indicate that the Supreme
Court denied a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the case being cited.
Someone with a legal claim files a lawsuit in a trial court, such as a U.S. District
Court, which receives evidence, and decides the facts and law. Someone who is dissatisfied
with a legal decision of the trial court can appeal. In the federal system, this appeal usually
would be to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which is required to consider and rule on all properly
presented appeals. The highest federal court in the U.S. is the Supreme Court. Someone
who is dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court of Appeals can request the U.S. Supreme
Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. This request is named a Petition for
Writ of Certiorari. The Supreme Court can refuse to take the case. In fact, the Court
receives thousands of "Cert Petitions" per year, and denies all but about one hundred. If the
Court accepts the case, it grants a Writ of Certiorari.
"Review on writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but a judicial discretion. A
petition for writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons." Rule 10, Rules of
the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court's certiorari process is covered in Rules 10-16, Rules of the
U.S. Supreme Court.
The effect of denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court is often debated. The
decision of the Court of Appeals is unaffected. However, the decision does not necessarily
reflect agreement with the decision of the lower court.
WRIT OF PROHIBITION
A writ of prohibition is a writ directing a subordinate to stop doing something the
law prohibits. In practice, the Court directs the Clerk to issue the Writ, and directs the Sheriff
to serve it on the subordinate, and the Clerk prepares the Writ and gives it to the Sheriff,
who serves it. This writ is often issued by a superior court to the lower court asking it not to
proceed with a case which does not fall under its jurisdiction.
These Writs are issued as "alternative" or "peremptory". An alternative Writ directs
the recipient to immediately act, or desist, and "Show Cause" why the directive should not
be made permanent. A peremptory Writ directs the recipient to immediately act, or desist,
and "return" the Writ, with certification of its compliance, within a certain time.
When an agency of an official body is the target of the Writ of Prohibition, the Writ is
directed to the official body over which the court has direct jurisdiction, ordering the official
body to cause the agency to desist.
Although the rest of this article speaks to judicial processes, a writ of prohibition may
be directed by any court of record (i.e., higher than a misdemeanor court) toward any official
body, whether a court or a county, city or town government, that is within the court's
jurisdiction.
MANDAMUS

[Latin, We comand.] A writ or order that is issued from a court of superior jurisdiction
that commands an inferior tribunal, corporation, Municipal Corporation, or individual to
perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act, the performance or omission of which is
required by law as an obligation.
A writ or order of mandamus is an extraordinary court order because it is made
without the benefit of full judicial process, or before a case has concluded. It may be issued
by a court at any time that it is appropriate, but it is usually issued in a case that has already
begun.
Generally, the decisions of a lower-court made in the course of a continuing case will
not be reviewed by higher courts until there is a final judgment in the case. On the federal
level, for example, 28 U.S.C.A. 1291 provides that appellate review of lower-court decisions
should be postponed until after a final judgment has been made in the lower court. A writ of
mandamus offers one exception to this rule. If a party to a case is dissatisfied with some
decision of the trial court, the party may appeal the decision to a higher court with a petition
for a writ of mandamus before the trial proceeds. The order will be issued only in exceptional
circumstances.
The writ of mandamus was first used by English courts in the early seventeenth
century. It migrated to the courts in the American colonies, and the law on it has remained
largely the same ever since. The remedy of mandamus is made available through court
opinions, statutes, and court rules on both the federal and state levels. On the federal level,
for example, 28 U.S.C.A. 1651(a) provides that courts "may issue all writs necessary or
appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles
of law."
The Supreme Court set forth some guidelines on writs of mandamus in Kerr v. United
States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S. Ct. 2119, 48 L. Ed. 2d 725 (1976). In Kerr, the Court
upheld the denial of a writ of mandamus sought by prison officials to prevent the district
court from compelling them to turn over personnel and inmate files to seven prisoners who
had sued the prison over alleged constitutional violations. The officials argued that turning
over the records would compromise prison communications and confidentiality.
The Supreme Court observed in Kerr that the writ of mandamus was traditionally
used by federal courts only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its jurisdiction,
or to compel an inferior court to exercise its authority when it had a duty to do so. The Court
also noted that mandamus is available only in exceptional cases because it is so disruptive
of the judicial process, creating disorder and delay in the trial. The writ would have been
appropriate, opined the Court, if the trial court had wrongly decided an issue, if failure to
reverse that decision would irreparably injure a party, and if there was no other method for
relief. Because the prison officials could claim a privilege to withhold certain documents, and
had the right to have the documents reviewed by a judge prior to release to the opposing
party, other remedies existed and the writ was inappropriate.
Although traditionally writs of mandamus are rare, they have been issued in a
growing number of situations. They have been issued by federal courts when a trial judge
refused to dismiss a case even though it lacked jurisdiction; refused to reassign a case
despite a conflict of interest; stopped a trial for Arbitration or an administrative remedy;
denied a party the opportunity to intervene, to file a cross-claim, or to amend a Pleading;
denied a Class Action; denied or allowed the consolidation or severance of two trials; refused
to permit depositions; or entered an order limiting or denying discovery of evidence. The
writ of mandamus can also be issued in a mandamus proceeding, independent of any
judicial proceeding. Generally, such a petition for a mandamus order is made to compel a
judicial or government officer to perform a duty owed to the petitioner. For example, in
Massachusetts, each year the commonwealth's attorney general and each district attorney
must make available to the public a report on wiretaps and other interceptions of oral
communications conducted by law enforcement officers. If the report is not made available,
any person may compel its production by filing an action for mandamus (Mass. Gen. Laws
Ann. ch. 272, 99 [West 1996]). If successful, a court would issue an order directing the
attorney general and district attorneys to produce the information. The attorney general and

district attorneys have a chance to defend their actions at a hearing on the action. If the
parties fail to comply with a mandamus order, they may be held in Contempt of court and
fined or jailed.
Further readings
Hazard, Geoffrey C., Jr., et al. 1999. Pleading and Procedure, State and Federal: Cases and
Materials. 8th ed. New York: Foundation Press.
Wyler, Robert A. 1990. Legalines: Civil Procedures. 3d ed. Chicago: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich Legal & Professional.