T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation
Decision
The Supreme Court ruled that federal district courts cannot review state-court judgments, even if those judgments are still being appealed in state court.
Plain-English summary generated by AI from the Court's published opinion on June 19, 2026. Always read the official opinion for the controlling text.
Key Takeaways
- 01Federal district courts are courts of 'original' jurisdiction and cannot act as 'appellate' courts for state cases.
- 02The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies even if a state-court judgment is not yet final or is still being appealed.
- 03Only the U.S. Supreme Court has the statutory authority to review final judgments from a state's highest court.
What Happened?
T.M. was involuntarily committed to a medical center and forced to take medication after accidentally eating gluten. To get released, she signed a settlement that required her to follow medical conditions and drop her lawsuits, which a state judge approved as a 'consent order.' Ten days later, she sued in federal court to overturn the order, even while she was also appealing it in the state court system.
Legal Question
Does the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bar federal district courts from hearing cases that challenge state-court judgments even when those judgments are still subject to further review in state appellate proceedings?
Why the Court Ruled This Way
Yes. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review and reject state-court judgments regardless of whether the state appeals process is finished. The Court reasoned that federal district courts only have 'original' jurisdiction, while the power to hear appeals from state courts belongs exclusively to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Arguments in Favor
Supporters of the decision argue that it protects federalism and prevents federal district courts from acting as 'super-appellate' courts over state judges. They maintain it avoids the confusion of having two different court systems deciding the same issue at the same time.
Arguments Against
Critics, including the dissenting justices, argue that the doctrine should be narrower and only apply to final state-court decisions. They contend that the Court is expanding a doctrine that often prevents people from protecting their federal rights in federal court.
What This Means for Everyday Americans
If you lose a case in state court, you cannot go to a lower federal judge to try to get that state decision overturned; you must generally follow your state's appeal process all the way to the top.
Explain It Like I'm 12
If a state judge makes a decision you don't like, you can't just run to a lower federal judge to ask them to cancel it. This case says that even if you are still fighting that decision in the state's own appeals courts, a federal trial court isn't allowed to step in. The rules say that federal trial courts and state courts are mostly separate groups, and if you want to switch from the state side to the federal side, you usually have to wait until you reach the very top—the U.S. Supreme Court.
Background
This decision clarifies the scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, affirming that it applies the moment a state court renders a judgment, effectively funneling all appeals through the state system and eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court.