Ante, at 391. The Court of Appeals, however, described the constitutional concern as “hypothetical,” not merely because no executive privilege had been asserted, but also in light of measures the District Court could take to “narrow” and “carefully foeu[s]” discovery. See 334 F. 3d, at 1105, 1107. 8 The Court also questions the District Court’s invocation of the federal mandamus statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1361, which provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” See ante, at 390-391; 219 F. Supp. 2d, at 41-44. See also Chandler v. Judicial Council of Tenth Circuit, 398 U. S. 74, 87-89, and n. 8 (1970) (<HOLDING>). On the question whether § 1361 allows
holding that this court has power under 28 usc  1651 to issue all writs necessary and appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law holding that district court had jurisdiction to consider claims under the all writs act holding mandamus under the all writs act 28 u s c  1651 improper but expressing no opinion on relief under the federal mandamus statute 1361 holding that removal to federal court was proper for claims asserted under all writs act holding that this court has authority in appropriate circumstances to issue writs under all writs act 28 usc  1651a