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

In fact, Feldman explicitly rejected that notion. There, the Court addressed a Fifth Circuit case holding that Rooker did not apply because the judgment “ `could not have been reviewed on a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court,' ” given the plaintiff's failure to raise the relevant federal issue in state court. 460 U. S., at 483, n. 16 (quoting Dasher v. Supreme Ct. of Tex., 658 F. 2d 1045, 1051 (1981)). The Court rejected that reasoning as “fawed” because “the fact that we may not have jurisdiction to review a final state-court judgment . . . does not mean that a United States district court should have jurisdiction over the claims.” 460 U. S., at 484, n. 16. After all, the Court explained, “ `lower federal courts possess no power whatever to sit in direct review of state court decisions.' ” Id., at 483, n. 16; but see id., at 490 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (arguing,…

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