T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶31

In T. M.’s view, Rooker-Feldman has never rested on any distinction between what, in substance, qualifies as original and appellate jurisdiction. Instead, on her theory, an action commenced in federal district court “seeking the adjudication of a freestanding [federal-question] cause of action” always technically “invok[es] the district court’s original jurisdiction” under 28 U. S. C. §1331 and is akin to a collateral attack. Brief for Petitioner 32; see post, at 2–3 (opinion of BARRETT, J.). Therefore, as T. M. sees things, the Court’s prior Rooker-Feldman cases should not be read to evince any concern about district courts exercising what amounts to appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments, but instead should be read as relying on a strict negative inference, from §1257, that when this Court has jurisdiction over a state-court judgment, district courts must not. In T. M.’s…

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