§ 8.01-653.Mandamus to secure construction of act directing payment out of treasury of the Commonwealth.
Chapter 25. Extraordinary Writs · Article 2. Mandamus and Prohibition · Last amended 1977 · Last verified July 16, 2026
In one sentenceSection 8.01-653 lets the Attorney General file a mandamus petition in the Supreme Court directing the Comptroller or Treasurer to make appropriated payments once either official notifies the Attorney General in writing of doubt about an appropriations act's constitutionality or construction, even before payment is due or demanded, so the court can resolve the legal question directly.
Full Text of § 8.01-653
Text size
Whenever the Comptroller or the Treasurer of the Commonwealth shall notify the Attorney General, in writing, that they, or either of them, entertain such doubt respecting the proper construction or interpretation of any act of the General Assembly which appropriates or directs the payment of money out of the treasury of the Commonwealth, or respecting the constitutionality of any such act, that they, or either of them, do not feel that it would be proper or safe to pay such money until there has been a final adjudication by the Supreme Court determining any and all such questions, and that, for such reason, they will not make payments pursuant to such act until such adjudication has been made, the Attorney General may file in such court a petition for a writ of mandamus directing or requiring the Comptroller or Treasurer of the Commonwealth, or both, to pay such money as provided by any such act at such time in the future as may be proper. In order to avoid delays in payments after the time for making them has arrived, any such petition may be filed at any time after the passage of any such act although the time for making such payments has not arrived and no demand for such payments has been made. In any such proceeding the court shall consider and determine all questions raised by the Attorney General's petition pertaining to the constitutionality or interpretation of any such act, even though some of such questions may not be necessary to the decision of the
question of the duty of such Comptroller and Treasurer of the Commonwealth to make payment of the moneys appropriated or directed to be paid.
The Comptroller and the Treasurer of the Commonwealth, or either of them, as the case may be, shall be made a party or parties defendant to any such petition and the court may, in its discretion, cause such other officers or persons to be made parties defendant as it may deem proper, and may make such order respecting the employment of an attorney or attorneys for any officer of the Commonwealth who is a party defendant as may be appropriate. The compensation of any such attorney shall be fixed by such court and upon its order paid out of the appropriation to the office or department of any such public officer represented by any such attorney in such proceeding.
Plain-English Summary
This section addresses a narrow but consequential problem: what happens when the Comptroller or the Treasurer of the Commonwealth doubts whether an appropriations act is constitutional or how it should be construed, and decides not to make the payments it directs until that question is settled. Once either official notifies the Attorney General in writing of that doubt, the Attorney General can file a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court, seeking an order directing the Comptroller or Treasurer to make the payments the act provides for, at whatever future time is proper.
The timing rule is deliberately generous: the petition can be filed even before the time for making the payments has arrived and before anyone has demanded payment, specifically so the legal question does not sit unresolved until a real payment dispute forces the issue. Once the petition is filed, the Supreme Court has to resolve every constitutional and interpretive question it raises, even ones that are not strictly necessary to decide the narrow duty to pay.
The Comptroller and the Treasurer — whichever is involved — become defendants, and the court can add other officers or persons as parties if appropriate. If a defendant officer needs legal representation, the court can arrange for and fix the compensation of an attorney, paid out of the appropriation to that officer’s own office or department.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must the Comptroller or Treasurer do to trigger this mandamus mechanism?
Notify the Attorney General in writing of doubt about the act’s proper construction, interpretation, or constitutionality, and state they will not make payments under it until there is a final adjudication.
Who files the mandamus petition?
The Attorney General.
Can the petition be filed before payments are due or demanded?
Yes — the petition may be filed even though the time for making the payments has not arrived and no demand for payment has been made.
What must the Supreme Court decide once the petition is filed?
All questions raised by the petition pertaining to the constitutionality or interpretation of the act, even if some are not necessary to decide the duty to pay.
Who becomes a defendant, and how is their legal representation paid for?
The Comptroller and the Treasurer, or either as the case may be, are made defendants, with the court able to add other officers or persons; any attorney employed for a defendant officer has compensation fixed by the court and paid from the appropriation to that officer’s office or department.
Amendment History
Code 1950, § 8-714; 1977, c. 617.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Code of Virginia, published by the
Code of Virginia, Virginia Division of Legislative Automated Systems. Last verified July 16, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:virginia comptroller treasurer mandamus appropriations actvirginia mandamus constitutionality of appropriations8.01-653 explainedvirginia attorney general mandamus payment from treasuryvirginia supreme court appropriations act mandamus petition