T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶35

Ultimately, adopting T. M. and the dissent’s rule would require the Court to abandon a central part of Rooker’s reasoning and reinterpret the doctrine to rest solely on a strict negative inference from §1257. See Brief for Petitioner 33– 34 (acknowledging that the Court’s precedents have rested in part based on the distinction between original and appellate jurisdiction); post, at 3 (acknowledging that Rooker rested in part on §1331). The Court declines to do so.

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