T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶92

Rooker-Feldman is a “maddeningly elusive” doctrine. B. Friedman & J. Gaylord, Rooker-Feldman, from the Ground Up, 74 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1129, 1133 (1999). We have primarily justified it as a negative inference from 28 U. S. C. §1257: Because Congress gave this Court appellate jurisdiction over certain state-court judgments, district courts must lack original jurisdiction to entertain a collateral attack against those judgments. See Rooker, 263 U. S., at 415–416; Feldman, 460 U. S., at 476. This Court’s exercise of appellate jurisdiction, the argument runs, is “functional[ly]” equivalent to a district court’s exercise of original jurisdiction over a collateral attack. Ante, at 10. The problem? A collateral attack is not functionally equivalent to an appeal.

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