Arnold v. Kotek

Mandamus is an “‘extraordinary remedial process which is awarded not as a matter of right, but in the exercise of sound judicial discretion.’” See State ex rel Fidanque v. Paulus, 297 Or 711, 717, 688 P2d 1303 (1984).

Ballot Measure 114 (2022) imposed changes to firearm statutes, including a permit-to-purchase requirement, a background-check requirement, and large-capacity magazine restrictions. Plaintiffs in the underlying case filed a declaratory judgment action against the State, arguing that Measure 114 violated Article I, section 27, of the Oregon Constitution. The trial court issued two preliminary judgment orders temporarily restraining the State from enforcing Ballot Measure 114. In response, the State sought a writ of mandamus from the Court directing the trial court to vacate the two preliminary orders which restricted enforcement of Measure 114. The Court declined to issue the writ and explained that a writ of mandamus is an “‘extraordinary remedial process which is awarded not as a matter of right, but in the exercise of sound judicial discretion.’” State ex rel Fidanque v. Paulus, 297 Or 711, 717, 688 P2d 1303 (1984). The Court held that the matter should remain with the trial court because the court was quickly working to resolve issues between the parties and “now [was] not an appropriate time to exercise authority” for “temporary and preliminary rulings.” Petition for writ of mandamus denied without prejudice.