T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶111

The Court also insists that “[f]ederalism principles are . . . best served” by applying Rooker-Feldman to dismiss T. M.’s challenge. Ante, at 15. But the word “federalism” does not appear in either Rooker or Feldman. And if it were true that general concerns about federalism animate the doctrine, Exxon would have come out the opposite way. The lower court in Exxon applied Rooker-Feldman in part because the federal suit was “an ‘insurance policy’ against an adverse result in state court”—a clear affront to federalism. 544 U. S., at 294, n. 9 (quoting 364 F. 3d 102, 105–106 (CA3 2004)). We dismissed that line of reasoning in a footnote, explaining that there is “nothing necessarily inappropriate” about “a protective action.” 544 U. S., at 294, n. 9. If federalism drives Rooker-Feldman, the Exxon Court missed the memo.

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