T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶101
Recognizing that things had gone awry, this Court intervened. In Exxon, we neutralized Rooker-Feldman by confining it to the procedural circumstances of the Rooker and Feldman cases. 544 U. S., at 284, 291. Our treatment of the doctrine was so devastating that one scholar penned its obituary. See S. Bray, Rooker Feldman (1923–2006), 9 Green Bag 2d 317 (2006). Faithfully read, Exxon requires us to reject the application of Rooker-Feldman to T. M.’s case. In Exxon, we lamented that lower courts had construed the doctrine “to extend far beyond the contours of the Rooker and Feldman cases.” 544 U. S., at 283. We acknowledged its tension with both jurisdictional statutes like §1331 and the Full Faith and Credit Act, observing that the doctrine risks “overriding Congress’ conferral of federal-court jurisdiction concurrent with jurisdiction exercised by state courts” and “superseding the…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.