Definition
Prerogative writs are a class of extraordinary judicial writs historically issued in the name of the sovereign — and later by courts exercising analogous supervisory authority — to control the actions of inferior courts, public officers, and governmental bodies. They are distinguished from ordinary process writs by two essential characteristics: they issue only as a matter of judicial discretion upon proper cause shown, not as a matter of right; and they are directed generally to the party whose conduct is to be controlled, not to the sheriff for enforcement.
The traditional prerogative writs are: habeas corpus (securing release from unlawful detention), mandamus (compelling a public officer or body to perform a ministerial duty), prohibition (restraining an inferior court from exceeding its jurisdiction), certiorari (bringing a lower tribunal's record before a superior court for review), quo warranto (challenging the legal authority by which a person holds public office or franchise), and procedendo (ordering a lower court to proceed to judgment when it has improperly delayed or refused to act).
---
Common Confusion
Modern practitioners routinely conflate "prerogative writs" with "extraordinary writs." The terms are closely related but not identical. Prerogative writs are the historical English category tied to the crown's supervisory power. Extraordinary writs is the modern American term used after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure absorbed or renamed most of this category; it also includes writs like coram nobis that do not trace directly to the English prerogative list. Researchers should not assume every source uses the terms interchangeably — older English and colonial American materials will use "prerogative writs" precisely; modern federal materials prefer "extraordinary writs."
---
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
The six canonical prerogative writs:
HABEAS CORPUS — Commands a custodian to produce a detained person before the court and justify the legal basis for detention. The most constitutionally significant of the group; protected against suspension by Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
MANDAMUS — Commands a lower court, officer, or agency to perform a nondiscretionary duty. Does not lie to compel discretionary acts.
PROHIBITION — Issues from a superior court to an inferior court or tribunal, ordering it to cease proceedings it lacks jurisdiction to conduct.
CERTIORARI — Brings the record of a lower tribunal before a superior court for review of legal error or jurisdictional excess. In modern American practice, the U.S. Supreme Court's discretionary review mechanism retains this name but operates under statutory and rule-based authority rather than common law prerogative.
QUO WARRANTO — Tests the legal right by which a person claims to hold public office, corporate charter, or franchise. Now largely replaced by statutory proceedings in most American jurisdictions.
PROCEDENDO — Directs a lower court that has wrongly stayed or refused to proceed with a matter to move forward to judgment. The least frequently encountered of the six in modern practice.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The phrase "prerogative writs" is primarily a term of art in English legal history and early American law. Researchers encountering it in sources predating the mid-twentieth century should treat it as the governing category label for what modern federal practice calls extraordinary writs. The doctrinal content — especially the discretionary standard, the supervisory rationale, and the non-sheriff-directed character — carries forward even where the terminology does not.
Several research traps deserve attention. First, the survival of individual writs is uneven. Habeas corpus has robust constitutional and statutory grounding in American law. Mandamus and prohibition survive under the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651) and are regularly litigated in appellate practice. Quo warranto and procedendo are largely vestigial in federal courts, though some states maintain active statutory versions. Researchers should not assume a writ recognized in English sources is equally available in a given American jurisdiction.
Second, the word "certiorari" presents a particular trap. In English prerogative writ practice, certiorari was a supervisory review mechanism of broad scope. In modern U.S. Supreme Court practice, certiorari is a discretionary case-selection tool operating under Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules. State courts use the term in varying ways. These are functionally different instruments wearing the same name.
Third, the "proper cause shown" standard is not uniform across the six writs or across jurisdictions. Each writ has developed its own showing requirements — emergency, no adequate remedy at law, clear duty, jurisdictional excess — that must be researched separately. The prerogative writ category tells you the writs share a discretionary character; it does not tell you what discretionary standard applies to each.
Fourth, for constitutional research, habeas corpus stands apart from the others. It alone has express constitutional protection against suspension. The remaining prerogative writs are creatures of common law and statute, and their availability can be modified or eliminated by legislation without triggering constitutional scrutiny of the same order.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's and Bouvier's are in close agreement on the core definition, both tracking Stephens' Commentaries for the canonical six-writ list. Both sources emphasize the discretionary, crown-derived character of the writs and note the unusual feature that they run to the parties rather than to the sheriff — a procedural marker that distinguished prerogative process from ordinary civil process and reflected the sovereign supervisory rationale underlying the whole category.
What neither historical dictionary fully captures is the divergent subsequent history of the individual writs in American law. The American reception was selective from the outset: habeas corpus was constitutionalized, certiorari was transformed into a docket-management tool, and quo warranto was largely displaced by statutory ouster proceedings. Researchers using Black's or Bouvier's historical entries as a guide to American doctrine will find the definitional skeleton accurate but the practical content incomplete for post-colonial practice.
The Bouvier entry's observation that prerogative writs "differ from other writs in that they are never issued except in the exercise of the judicial discretion" is the most practically useful phrase in either historical source. It captures the essential characteristic that distinguishes this class from writs of right and explains why the "no adequate remedy at law" requirement appears in the issuance standards for every member of the group.
---
Jurisdictional Note
American states vary considerably in which prerogative writs they recognize as such and whether they operate under common law, statute, or court rule. Several states have absorbed mandamus and prohibition into their rules of appellate procedure as "supervisory writs" or "writs of superintending control." Federal practice channels most of this authority through the All Writs Act. Researchers should verify the procedural vehicle in the specific jurisdiction before assuming that English or early American prerogative writ doctrine controls.
---