T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶114
Grounding Rooker-Feldman in federalism is also at odds with our abstention doctrines, which already account for friction between state and federal courts but do not apply here. We have purposefully kept these doctrines narrow, stressing that district courts have a “virtually unflagging obligation . . . to exercise the jurisdiction given them.” Col orado River, 424 U. S., at 817. “[O]nly exceptional circumstances justify a federal court’s refusal to decide a case in deference to the States.” New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U. S. 350, 368 (1989). No one argues that T. M.’s challenge fits within those “exceptional circumstances.” Nonetheless, the Court repackages the same principle—“deference to the States”—as a reason why the District Court lacked jurisdiction in the first place. See ante, at 14. It is ironic that in the Court’s view, federalism…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.