T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶110

Take “anomalous outcomes.” The Court reasons that it is “difficult to see why Congress would have authorized district courts to review final state-court judgments pending appeal in state court when it did not authorize this Court to do so.” Ante, at 14. But the Court’s approach also yields “anomalous outcomes.” To give one example: As the Court concedes, the doctrine applies only to “‘state-court judgments’”; it does not bar district courts from reviewing state- court interlocutory orders. Ante, at 1 (quoting Exxon, 544 U. S., at 284). Yet it is similarly “difficult to see why Congress would have authorized district courts” to review interlocutory orders subject to further review in state court “when it did not authorize this Court to do so.” Ante, at 14. The Court’s approach cannot answer this question, but mine can: Rooker-Feldman allows for this result because it is rooted in §1257,…

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