T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶104
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 ordinary application of preclusion law pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1738.” Ibid.; see id., at 284. And we drew a line: Rooker-Feldman “is confined to cases of the kind from which the doctrine acquired its name.” 544 U. S., at 284. We then identified the key features of those cases. Id., at 291. Among them: In “both” Rooker and Feldman, the losing party sued in…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.