T. M. v. University of Maryland Medical System
In brief
The Supreme Court upheld the Fourth Circuit's ruling: a federal district court cannot hear a lawsuit seeking to overturn a prior state-court judgment while state review remains available.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-4 · June 18, 2026 · Opinion by Justice Thomas
- What it’s about
- The Court ruled 5–4 for the University of Maryland Medical System Corporation, holding that federal district courts cannot hear lawsuits that seek to overturn a state-court judgment, even while that judgment is still being reviewed in the state appellate system.
- Who it affects
- Federal district courts cannot hear a lawsuit seeking to overturn a state-court judgment issued before that federal case began, even while review by a state appeals court remains available.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit’s dismissal of T. M.’s federal case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
The decision draws a line between state appeals and federal trial courts: a federal district court is not a second state appeals court.
Question presented
Can the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents parties who lose in state courts from challenging injuries caused by state-court judgments, be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court?
What the Court decided
Holding
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district court jurisdiction over cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and seeking district court review and rejection of those judgments, regardless of whether the state-court judgment remains subject to further review in state appellate proceedings. Pp. 5– 18. 139 F. 4th 344, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
From the opinions
“They were right to hold the line. Because the Court has chosen to relax it, I respectfully dissent.”
What's next
Lower federal courts must not hear cases brought by people who lost in state court and seek to overturn judgments issued before the federal case began, even when state review remains available. The Fourth Circuit's ruling remains in place, so T. M. cannot use a federal district court for this challenge.
Why it matters
The ruling addresses which court may hear the challenge, not the state-court dispute itself.
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Show 7 moreShow fewer
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Case data updated: title, summary
New analysis added
New analysis added
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court decide in T. M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation?
- It upheld the Fourth Circuit's ruling: federal district courts cannot hear lawsuits seeking to overturn state judgments while state review remains available.
- Why does the T. M. ruling matter for federal courts?
- A federal district court cannot act as an appeal from a state-court judgment merely because a state appeal remains possible.
- What remains unresolved after the ruling in T. M.?
- The decision addresses the federal district court's power to hear the challenge, not the state-court dispute or its final outcome.
- How close was the vote in T. M.'s case?
- The Court ruled 5–4. Justice Sotomayor wrote the opinion, and Justice Barrett wrote the opposing opinion.
- What happens next for T. M.?
- The federal challenge cannot proceed in district court. Any further review of the state judgment must occur through the state appeals process, not a federal district-court appeal.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.