T. M., Petitioner v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation, et al.

The case asked whether someone can sue in federal district court over injuries caused by a state-court judgment while that judgment is still being appealed in state court. The Supreme Court said no, so federal courts lacked jurisdiction over T. M.'s challenge to Maryland orders related to her commitment and treatment.

The Court ruled that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine blocks a federal district-court suit even when the state-court judgment is still subject to further review in state court. The prompt does not provide the vote count or opinion lineup.

Majority

Sotomayor

Thomas

Alito

Kavanaugh

Jackson

Dissent

Barrett

Roberts

Kagan

Gorsuch

This means people usually cannot use federal district court as a parallel path while their state appeal is still going. For example, someone challenging a state commitment order must keep fighting in the state system instead of filing a new federal trial-court case.

Lower federal courts will apply this rule by dismissing similar cases for lack of jurisdiction when plaintiffs challenge state-court judgments still under state review. People in T. M.'s position must continue through the state appellate process, and any further federal review would have to come later through the proper route.

The dispute was over whether a person can file in federal district court to attack a state-court judgment that is still being appealed. The Court said the answer is no.

It stops them from running a second fight in federal district court at the same time. They generally must keep using the state appeal process first.

Federal district courts must dismiss similar suits when they challenge state judgments still under state review. Litigants must continue in state court and use the normal review path from there.