T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶52

Rooker was thus based on two premises. See ante, at 5– 7, 9–10. First, “to reverse or modify the” allegedly erroneous judgment of another court is to “exercise . . . appellate jurisdiction.” Rooker, 263 U. S., at 416. Second, “[t]he jurisdiction possessed by the District Courts is strictly original”; only “this Court” has “appellate jurisdiction” over state-court judgments. Ibid. From these two premises, it follows that district courts lack jurisdiction to reverse or modify the allegedly erroneous judgments of state courts. The conclusion follows from the premises, so the only question is whether the premises are true.

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