T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶112

Even if federalism were a solid rationale, it is doubtful that “[f]ederalism principles are . . . best served by” dismissing T. M.’s challenge. Ante, at 15. Like other States, Maryland has adopted preclusion rules to determine when parties may relitigate issues and claims decided in a prior case. The District Court determined that T. M.’s lawsuit is not “precluded” under Maryland law—which means that T. M. could have filed a suit just like this one in a Maryland state court. Letter Order in No. 1:23–cv–1684 (D Md.), ECF Doc. 27, pp. 2–3. Yet the Court maintains that bouncing her suit from federal court best serves federalism. Why? Wouldn’t Maryland’s interests be best served by affording its judgments the effect they would have under state law?

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