Legal Definitions - writ of prohibition

A writ of prohibition is a special legal order issued by a higher court to a lower court. Its primary purpose is to stop the lower court from taking an action that it is not legally permitted to do. This can happen in a few key situations:

• When the lower court is acting outside its legal authority (its "jurisdiction").
• When it's trying to interfere with a case that a higher court is currently reviewing on appeal.
• When it's attempting to re-examine an issue that a higher court has already definitively decided.

This type of writ is considered an extraordinary remedy, meaning it's not a common tool and is only used in exceptional circumstances when there are no other adequate legal options available to prevent significant harm. Higher courts have complete discretion over whether to issue a writ of prohibition, carefully weighing factors like the seriousness of the lower court's overreach and whether an ordinary appeal would be sufficient to correct the problem.

Examples of a Writ of Prohibition in Action:

• Preventing a Court from Exceeding its Jurisdiction:

  Imagine a local small claims court, which typically handles disputes involving small amounts of money, attempts to hear a complex felony criminal case involving serious charges like armed robbery. Small claims courts have very limited jurisdiction and are not legally equipped or authorized to handle such severe criminal matters. If the small claims court judge insisted on proceeding with the criminal trial, the defense attorneys could petition a higher court (like a state appellate court) for a writ of prohibition. The higher court would likely issue the writ, ordering the small claims court to immediately cease all proceedings in the criminal case because it clearly lacks the legal power to hear such a serious matter. This illustrates how a writ of prohibition stops a lower court from acting beyond its established jurisdiction.

• Stopping Interference with an Ongoing Appeal:

  Consider a scenario where a trial court issues a judgment in a civil lawsuit, and one of the parties immediately files an appeal with a higher court. As part of the appeal process, the higher court issues a "stay" on the trial court's judgment, meaning the judgment cannot be enforced while the appeal is pending. Despite this explicit stay order, the trial court judge attempts to enforce parts of the original judgment, perhaps by ordering a bank to freeze the losing party's assets. The party who filed the appeal could then ask the higher appellate court for a writ of prohibition. The writ would order the trial court to stop all attempts to enforce the judgment, as doing so directly interferes with the higher court's ongoing review of the case and its explicit stay order.

• Prohibiting Re-litigation of Decided Issues:

  Suppose a state's highest court rules definitively on a specific constitutional question, establishing a binding precedent for all lower courts in that state. Later, a different trial court in the same state begins hearing a new case that involves the exact same constitutional issue, but the trial court judge indicates an intention to rule contrary to the highest court's established precedent, effectively trying to re-decide the issue. The party who would be harmed by this re-litigation could petition an intermediate appellate court or even the state's highest court for a writ of prohibition. The writ would prevent the trial court from re-examining or ruling inconsistently with the already settled legal principle, ensuring that higher court decisions are respected and followed by lower courts.