T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶108

Yet even as it resuscitates the §1331 rationale, the Court acknowledges that §1257 remains in the mix. Ante, at 6 (describing Rooker-Feldman as “built” on both §1331 and §1257). And by recognizing that the doctrine applies only to “state-court judgments,” ante, at 1 (emphasis added), the Court tacitly admits that §1257—not §1331—is what really determines when Rooker-Feldman kicks in. Still, the Court’s embrace of §1257 is only partial: It is unwilling to accept §1257’s requirement of a “[f]inal judgment” from the “highest court of a State.” The Court’s main reason for disregarding this limit appears to be Exxon, but as explained, Exxon compels the opposite conclusion.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.