28 U.S.C. § 1651

Writs

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.(b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 944; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 90, 63 Stat. 102.)Historical and Revision Notes1948 Act

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 342, 376, 377 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§ 234, 261, 262, 36 Stat. 1156, 1162).

Section consolidates sections 342, 376, and 377 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with necessary changes in phraseology.

Such section 342 provided:

“The Supreme Court shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed under the authority of the United States, or to persons holding office under the authority of the United States, where a State, or an ambassador, or other public minister, or a consul, or vice consul is a party.”

Such section 376 provided:

“Writs of ne exeat may be granted by any justice of the Supreme Court, in cases where they might be granted by the Supreme Court; and by any district judge, in cases where they might be granted by the district court of which he is a judge. But no writ of ne exeat shall be granted unless a suit in equity is commenced, and satisfactory proof is made to the court or judge granting the same that the defendant designs quickly to depart from the United States.”

Such section 377 provided:

“The Supreme Court and the district courts shall have power to issue writs of scire facias. The Supreme Court, the circuit courts of appeals, and the district courts shall have power to issue all writs not specifically provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”

The special provisions of section 342 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with reference to writs of prohibition and mandamus, admiralty courts and other courts and officers of the United States were omitted as unnecessary in view of the revised section.

The revised section extends the power to issue writs in aid of jurisdiction, to all courts established by Act of Congress, thus making explicit the right to exercise powers implied from the creation of such courts.

The provisions of section 376 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with respect to the powers of a justice or judge in issuing writs of ne exeat were changed and made the basis of subsection (b) of the revised section but the conditions and limitations on the writ of ne exeat were omitted as merely confirmatory of well-settled principles of law.

The provision in section 377 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., authorizing issuance of writs of scire facias, was omitted in view of rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolishing such writ. The revised section is expressive of the construction recently placed upon such section by the Supreme Court in U.S. Alkali Export Assn. v. U.S., 65 S.Ct. 1120, 325 U.S. 196, 89 L.Ed. 1554, and De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 65 S.Ct. 1130, 325 U.S. 212, 89 L.Ed. 1566.

1949 Act

This section corrects a grammatical error in subsection (a) of section 1651 of title 28, U.S.C.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1949—Subsec. (a). Act May 24, 1949, inserted “and” after “jurisdictions”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesWrit of Error

Act Jan. 31, 1928, ch. 14, § 2, 45 Stat. 54, as amended Apr. 26, 1928, ch. 440, 45 Stat. 466; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 23, 62 Stat. 990, provided that: “All Acts of Congress referring to writs of error shall be construed as amended to the extent necessary to substitute appeal for writ of error.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8,216 cases (2,618 in the last 5 years), 1943–2026 · leading case: Cheney v. United States District Court for District of Columbia
Cheney v. United States District Court for District of Columbia (2004) scotus · cites it 6× “Rule 4(a) is inapplicable to the Government's mandamus petition under the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651 . Because we vacate the Court of Appeals' judgment and remand the case for further proceedings for the court to consider whether a writ of mandamus should have issued, we…”
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. (1983) scotus · cites it 6× “[5] Mercury sought appellate review through two alternative routes — a notice of appeal under § 1291, and a petition for mandamus under the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651 . [6] Mercury expressly stated that its appeal was based only on § 1291, and not on 28 U.”
Denedo v. United States (2008) armfor · cites it 12× “1 Subsequently, Appellant filed a petition for extraordinary relief with the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, requesting collateral review of his court-martial for alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and issuance of a writ of error coram nobis under the All…”
Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo v. Michael Schiavo (2005) ca11 · cites it 7× “Plaintiffs have also petitioned this Court to grant the same injunctive relief under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a). Although we ordinarily do not have jurisdiction over appeals from orders granting or denying temporary restraining orders, in circumstances such as…”
United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) scotus · cites it 8× “41 nor the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651 (a), provided any basis for such an order.”
Loving v. United States (2005) armfor · cites it 9× “Hart 27 the Government asserted in its opposition to Petitioner’s certiorari petition to the Supreme Court that this Court “erred in exercising jurisdiction over the claim [writ appeal petition] under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a)[2000] [the All Writs Act].”
Davis v. Roberts (2005) ca10 · cites it 7× “He also seeks to appeal the denial of his motion for reconsideration and appeals the denial of a writ of coram nobis under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 . All claims derive from a challenge to a prior sentence that he had fully served by the time he sought relief in federal court.”
United States v. Howell (2016) armfor · cites it 6× “1 This matter is before us as a result of a petition for extraordinary relief filed by the Government pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §1651 (a). In its petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition, the Government asked the United States…”
United States v. Denedo (2009) scotus · cites it 5× “Respondent argued that the NMCCA could set aside its earlier decision by issuing a writ of coram nobis under the authority of the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651 (a). The Government filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.”
Shoop v. Twyford (2022) scotus · cites it 4× “” 28 U. S. C. §1651 (a). The Court of Ap- peals affirmed.”
Baze v. Parker (2011) ca6 · cites it 12× “§ 3599 (f) and, in the alternative, the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 . On May 6, 2010, the district court denied Baze's motion.”
Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc. (2004) ca11 · cites it 4× “Both injunctions were issued pursuant to the court’s authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a). Because it is pertinent to both sets of rulings, we begin in Part I by setting forth the standard of review, then proceed in Part II to discussing the general standards…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1651(5) — 1 case
Ray, Willie L. (2015) texapp
— 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) — 38 cases
Nixon v. Sirica (1973) cadc
— 28 U.S.C. § 1651(b) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.