What Is a 'Show Cause' Order in a Mandamus Case?

A procedural device that requires the respondent to justify its conduct before the court decides whether to grant relief.

A show cause order is a court order requiring a party — typically the respondent in a mandamus case — to appear and explain, or "show cause," why the court should not grant the relief requested.

Origins in the traditional alternative writ

Show cause orders trace back to the traditional "alternative writ" structure explained in Peremptory Writ vs. Alternative Writ of Mandamus, in which a respondent was given a choice: perform the requested act, or appear and explain why it should not be required to.

How show cause orders function in modern practice

In many modern courts, a show cause order operates similarly to an expedited briefing schedule, requiring the respondent to file a written response within a specified, often short, timeframe addressing why the requested mandamus relief is not warranted.

When courts are more likely to issue one

Courts are more inclined to issue a show cause order when a petition presents a facially strong claim, particularly where time-sensitive circumstances (such as an approaching deadline) make an expedited response appropriate.

Responding to a show cause order as the respondent

A respondent served with a show cause order must generally respond within the specified deadline or risk having the requested relief granted by default, making prompt attention to these orders essential for government respondents and their counsel.

What happens after the response

Once the respondent's explanation is filed, the court typically either rules based on the written submissions or schedules a hearing for oral argument before issuing a final decision on whether to grant the writ.

What the order is, in the rule that produces it

A show cause order asks the respondent to explain why the relief sought should not be granted. In the federal courts of appeals the equivalent step appears in Fed. R. App. P. 21(b): the court may deny the petition without an answer, but it may not grant the writ before ordering the respondent to answer or otherwise inviting a response. In other words, the court cannot rule for the petitioner without first hearing from the other side.

The order descends from the alternative writ of traditional practice, which commanded the respondent either to perform the act or to appear and explain the failure. The name changed; the function did not.

What it signals, and what it does not

The order is procedurally significant precisely because the rule makes it a precondition to relief. A petition that never draws one cannot be granted. That makes it the most informative signal the process gives, and it is still a long way from a decision.

Responding to one, and what follows

For a respondent, the answer should address the specific question the order asks rather than re-argue the whole matter, and should say what has changed since the petition was filed. Where the underlying problem has been resolved, the answer usually says so and asks that the petition be denied as moot, which is a common and effective response.

After the answer, several things can happen. The court may deny the petition, grant it, order further briefing, or hold the matter while the respondent acts. In a substantial number of cases the underlying decision issues between the order and the answer, and the petition is denied as moot without any ruling on whether it had merit.