T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶97
Conceptual problems aside, it is not clear what Rooker- Feldman brings to the table. Preclusion already bars parties from relitigating issues and claims that were decided in state court. See, e.g., ibid. And when state litigation is ongoing, various abstention doctrines prevent federal courts from getting involved. Younger abstention, for example, precludes federal courts from interfering with state criminal prosecutions and certain state civil proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971); Sprint Commu nications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U. S. 69, 72–73 (2013); see also Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800, 818–821 (1976) (Colorado River abstention); Railroad Comm’n of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, 500–501 (1941) (Pullman abstention); Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S. 315, 332–334 (1943) (Burford abstention). Finally, the Anti-Injunction…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.