The question
Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a federal district court from reviewing a state-court judgment only when that judgment is final and rendered by the highest state court in which a decision could be had, or also when the judgment remains subject to further review in state appellate proceedings.
T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation
What the Court decided
The Court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district court jurisdiction over suits by state-court losers seeking review and rejection of state-court judgments even when those judgments remain subject to further review in state appellate proceedings. Federal district courts lack any power to directly review state-court judgments, and the Supreme Court is the only federal court with appellate jurisdiction over them. The bar therefore applies regardless of whether the state judgment is still open to further state appellate review.
How the justices split
5-4The Court's opinion
Sotomayor, joined by Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Jackson
The doctrine bars federal district court jurisdiction over state-court losers seeking review and rejection of state-court judgments rendered before the federal suit began, whether or not those judgments remain subject to further state appellate review. Federal district courts generally lack any power to directly review cases from state courts, and only the Supreme Court holds appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments under 28 U.S.C. Section 1257(a). Rooker and Feldman establish that a district court exercising such review would be exercising appellate jurisdiction it does not possess.
Concurring
Thomas, writing alone
Thomas joined the opinion of the Court in full and filed a separate concurring opinion. The syllabus does not state the grounds of the concurrence.
Dissenting
Barrett, joined by Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch
Barrett dissented, joined by Roberts, Kagan, and Gorsuch. The syllabus does not set out the reasoning of the dissent, which disagreed with extending the Rooker-Feldman bar to state-court judgments that remain subject to further state appellate review.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district court jurisdiction regardless of whether the state-court judgment remains subject to further review in state appellate proceedings.
Source: syllabus, Held
The doctrine applies to cases brought by state-court losers seeking district court review and rejection of state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Supreme Court is the only federal court with appellate jurisdiction to review state-court judgments, which extends only to final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had under 28 U.S.C. Section 1257(a).
Source: syllabus, Held
Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Jackson.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Roberts, Kagan, and Gorsuch.
Source: syllabus, lineup