T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶115

The Court’s reliance on federalism also sits uneasily with the fact that T. M.’s suit arises under 42 U. S. C. §1983. Section 1983 was the “product of a vast transformation from” traditional “concepts of federalism.” Mitchum v. Fos ter, 407 U. S. 225, 242 (1972). Its “very purpose” was “to interpose the federal courts between the States and the people, as guardians of the people’s federal rights—to protect the people from unconstitutional action under color of state law, ‘whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial.’” Ibid. (quoting Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 346 (1880)). Given our longstanding interpretation of §1983, it is odd to cite federalism as grounds for dismissing a §1983 suit. Cf. J. Beermann, Comments on Rooker-Feldman or Let State Law Be Our Guide, 74 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1209, 1230–1231 (1999). Notably, we have construed the Anti- Injunction Act—which…

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