FCC v. Brown · ¶7
A writ of mandamus is a “‘drastic and extraordinary’ remedy ‘reserved for really extraordinary causes.’” Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D. C., 542 U. S. 367, 380 (2004) (quoting Ex parte Fahey, 332 U. S. 258, 259–260 (1947)). To obtain a writ of mandamus, a litigant must demonstrate that he has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires” and that his right to the writ is “clear and indisputable.” 542 U. S., at 380–381 (internal quotation marks omitted). Together, these prerequisites ensure that mandamus, one of “the most potent weapons in the judicial arsenal,” Will v. United States, 389 U. S. 90, 107 (1967), is used only to correct a clear “‘usurpation of power’” by a lower court, id., at 95 (quoting De Beers Consol. Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U. S. 212, 217 (1945)), or to compel an agency to “perform a ministerial or non-discretionary act” over which the…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.