T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation
608 U. S. ___ (2026) · 6/18/26
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district court jurisdiction over cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and seeking district court review and rejection of those judgments, regardless of whether the state-court judgment remains subject to further review in state appellate proceedings.
Edition: preliminary print (page proof)
Voices: Syllabus — prepared by the Reporter of Decisions · Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court. · Justice Thomas, concurring. · Justice Barrett, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Kagan, and Justice Gorsuch join, dissenting.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by state-court losers seeking review and rejection of state-court judgments rendered before district court proceedings commenced. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus tries Corp., 544 U. S. 280, 284. This case asks whether the doctrine applies only to final judgments rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, or whether it also bars suit when the state-court judgment at issue remains subject to further review in state appellate proceedings. Petitioner…
Held: The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district court jurisdiction over cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and seeking district court review and rejection of those judgments, regardless of whether the state-court judgment remains subject to further review in state appellate proceedings. Pp. 5– 18. (a) Federal district courts generally lack “any power to review directly cases from state courts.” Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Locomo tive Engineers, 398 U. S. 281, 286. The…Read it in the reading room ›