T. M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation

The case asked whether someone can go to federal trial court to attack a state-court order while that order is still being appealed in state court. The Supreme Court said no, ruling that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (a rule that keeps federal trial courts from reviewing state-court judgments) still blocks that kind of suit, so the federal courts could not hear T. M.'s challenge to Maryland orders about her commitment and treatment.

The Court said the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (a rule that keeps federal trial courts from reviewing state-court judgments) also blocks suits when the state judgment is still open to more review in state court. The vote count and opinion lineup were not provided in the materials here.

Majority

Sotomayor

Thomas

Alito

Kavanaugh

Jackson

Dissent

Barrett

Roberts

Kagan

Gorsuch

People who lose in state court generally cannot switch to federal trial court and relitigate the same injury just because the state appeal is still pending. For example, a person challenging a state commitment or treatment order must keep using the state review process rather than file a new federal case.

Lower federal courts must apply this rule in similar cases and dismiss suits that ask them to review state-court judgments even while state appeals continue. People in T. M.'s position must keep pursuing relief through the state appellate process and any further review available there.

The Court said a person cannot use federal trial court to challenge a state-court judgment just because the state appeal is still pending. That rule barred T. M.'s federal suit.

People trying to challenge state-court orders in federal trial court while state appeals continue are affected. That includes people contesting commitment or treatment orders like T. M.

Lower federal courts must follow this rule and dismiss similar cases for lack of power to hear them. Litigants must keep using the state appeal process for those challenges.