T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶107
To justify giving Rooker-Feldman a broader sweep, the Court resurrects a rationale that Exxon buried: §1331. Before Exxon, we had cited §1331 as a secondary rationale for the doctrine, see ante, at 3; according to the Court, Exxon continues the thread, see ante, at 11. That is a very ambitious reading of Exxon. Rather than describing Rooker- Feldman as a negative inference from §1331, Exxon portrays it as a negative inference from §1257 that overrides §1331. As Exxon summarizes: Rooker-Feldman describes when this Court’s appellate jurisdiction “precludes” district courts from exercising the jurisdiction they would “otherwise” have. 544 U. S., at 291. The Court protests that if Exxon had intended to discard the §1331 rationale, it would have said so. See ante, at 12. But the Court does not even mention this language—Exxon’s only explanation of the doctrine’s rationale—much less explain…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.