Will v. United States

Supreme Court of United States
389 U.S. 90 (1967)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power and may not be used as a substitute for an appeal, particularly by the government in a criminal case. An appellate court issuing such a writ must provide a reasoned explanation for its decision.

Facts:

The United States government indicted Simmie Horwitz for criminal tax evasion.
During pre-trial proceedings, Horwitz's counsel filed a motion for a bill of particulars.
The motion included a specific request (request #25) for information about any oral statements Horwitz allegedly made that the government intended to rely on at trial.
This request sought the names and addresses of the persons to whom the statements were made, the time and place of the statements, and whether those persons were government agents.
The government objected to this request, arguing it was an improper demand for a list of prosecution witnesses.
The government refused to comply with the district court's subsequent order to provide the information sought in request #25.

Procedural Posture:

Simmie Horwitz was indicted for tax evasion in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, a federal trial court.
U.S. District Judge Will (petitioner) ordered the government to comply with a defendant's request for a bill of particulars.
The U.S. Attorney refused to comply, and Judge Will indicated he would dismiss the indictment.
Before dismissal, the government obtained an ex parte stay from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
The government petitioned the Seventh Circuit for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Will to vacate his order.
A panel of the Seventh Circuit initially denied the writ.
On the government's petition for reconsideration, the Seventh Circuit, without opinion, reversed itself and issued the writ of mandamus.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Seventh Circuit's issuance of the writ.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a writ of mandamus a proper remedy for a court of appeals to compel a district court to vacate a pre-trial discovery order in a criminal case, where the order is within the district court's jurisdiction and there is no record of a persistent disregard of federal rules?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Warren

No. The Court of Appeals improperly issued the writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is not a substitute for an appeal and can only be justified by exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power. The record does not show that the district judge's pre-trial discovery order was outside his jurisdiction or part of a deliberate disregard for procedural rules. The government's right to appeal in criminal cases is strictly limited by Congress, and mandamus cannot be used to circumvent this policy. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals' failure to provide any reasoning for its decision to issue the writ is a critical flaw, as such a drastic remedy demands a reasoned exposition to justify its use and permit appellate review.

Concurring - Mr. Justice Black

No. While concurring in the judgment to vacate the writ, mandamus can be a proper remedy to review a non-final order if extraordinary circumstances exist where compliance would cause irreparable damage. The issuance of the writ should hinge not on the finality of the order, but on the presence of exceptional circumstances. The primary error of the courts below was their failure to properly consider whether such exceptional facts existed in this case. Therefore, the case should be remanded for the Court of Appeals to determine if special circumstances are present that would call for the issuance of mandamus.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the high threshold for issuing a writ of mandamus, solidifying its status as an extraordinary remedy rather than a tool for routine interlocutory review. By emphasizing the strong policy against piecemeal appeals and government appeals in criminal cases, the Court limited the ability of prosecutors to challenge adverse pre-trial rulings. The decision also established an important procedural requirement: appellate courts must provide a reasoned opinion when issuing a writ, ensuring transparency and enabling meaningful review. This holding protects the discretionary authority of district court judges and the final judgment rule, which is central to federal court procedure.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Will v. United States (1967)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature