T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶89

Twenty years ago, this Court held that the Rooker-Field man doctrine is “confined” to the procedural circumstances of the two cases from which the doctrine draws its name. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U. S. 280, 284, 291 (2005); see Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U. S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U. S. 462 (1983). In “both cases,” we emphasized, the federal action was brought “after the state proceedings ended.” Exxon, 544 U. S., at 291. Seven Courts of Appeals took us at our word, refusing to apply Rooker- Feldman when the underlying state action remained pending. They were right to hold the line. Because the Court has chosen to relax it, I respectfully dissent.

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