T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶23

Rooker and Feldman are thus built on two closely related bases of reasoning. The first is that, when plaintiffs “essentially invit[e] federal courts of first instance to review and reverse unfavorable state-court judgments,” they are seeking an exercise of appellate jurisdiction. See Exxon, 544 U. S., at 283–284 (describing Rooker and Feldman). The second is that such “appellate jurisdiction to reverse or modify a state-court judgment is lodged, . . . by 28 U. S. C. §1257, exclusively in this Court.” 544 U. S., at 283. Federal district courts, by contrast, are “empowered to exercise [only] original, not appellate, jurisdiction.” Ibid.

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