T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶22

The Court delineated some of the bounds that separate these two systems in Rooker and Feldman. First, in Rooker, the Court held that a Federal District Court lacked jurisdiction to resolve a case that sought “to have a judgment of a circuit court in Indiana, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State, declared null and void” because it violated the Constitution’s due process, contracts, and equal protection clauses. 263 U. S., at 414. The Court explained that “entertain[ing] a proceeding to reverse or modify [a] judgment for errors of that character” would be “an exercise of appellate jurisdiction.” Id., at 415–416. As a result, the suit was “plainly not within the District Court’s jurisdiction” because the “jurisdiction possessed by the District Courts is strictly original.” Ibid. The Court also laid out the path to challenging a state-court judgment: “If the constitutional…

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