<P> In the administrative law context in the United States, the requirement that mandamus can be used only to compel a ministerial act has largely been abandoned . By statute or by judicial expansion of the writ of mandamus in most of the U.S. states, acts of administrative agencies are now subject to judicial review for abuse of discretion . Judicial review of agencies of the United States federal government, for abuse of discretion, is authorized by the U.S. Administrative Procedures Act . </P> <P> The authority of the United States district courts (trial courts) to issue mandamus has been expressly abrogated by Rule 81 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but relief in the nature of mandamus can be had by other remedies provided for in the Rules, where provided by statute, or by use of the District Court's equitable powers . </P> <P> In the context of mandamus from a United States Court of Appeals to a United States District Court, the Supreme Court has ruled that the appellate courts have discretion to issue mandamus to control an abuse of discretion by the lower court in unusual circumstances, where there is a compelling reason not to wait for an appeal from a final judgment . This discretion is exercised very sparingly . It is exercised with somewhat greater frequency, although still sparingly, in the context of discovery disputes involving privileged materials, since a district court order erroneously forcing the disclosure of privileged material may never be remediable through a later appeal . In the case In Re Electronic Privacy Information Center (2013), privacy advocates sought a writ of mandamus directly from the Supreme Court to halt the National Security Agency's bulk phone record collection program . The Supreme Court denied the petition . More recently, the Supreme Court sided with the US Government and issued a writ of mandamus related to discovery in a court case involving the rescinding of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy . </P> <P> In some state court systems, mandamus has evolved into a general procedure for discretionary appeals from non-final trial court decisions . In some U.S. states, such as the courts of California, the writ is now called mandate instead of mandamus, and may be issued by any level of the state court system to any lower court or to any government official . It is still common for Californians to bring "taxpayer actions" against public officials for wasting public funds through mismanagement of a government agency, where the relief sought is a writ of mandate compelling the official to stop wasting money and fulfill his duty to protect the public fisc . The writ of mandate is also used in California for interlocutory appeals . In this context, the party seeking the writ is treated on appeal like a plaintiff, the trial court becomes the defendant, and the opponent is designated as the "real party in interest ." </P>

Does the supreme court have the power to issue a writ of mandamus