T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶40

T. M., her amici, and the dissent respond that federal courts have at their disposal various abstention and preclusion doctrines, which generally prevent federal courts from interfering with state proceedings or bar parties from relitigating issues already decided. According to T. M., those doctrines prevent federal-court intervention while state appellate proceedings are ongoing and thus do “nearly all,” but apparently not all, “of the work that Rooker-Feldman does.” Reply Brief 18; see Brief for Federal Courts Scholars as Amici Curiae 7–16 (listing nine doctrines); see also post, at 4–5 (opinion of BARRETT, J.) (describing preclusion and abstention doctrines). It is unclear, however, if such doctrines even apply in cases, like this one, where a plaintiff does not attempt to relitigate the same claims in state and federal forums but rather complains of injuries that stem directly from…

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