T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation.
The Supreme Court addressed whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to state-court judgments still subject to state appellate review. T. M. sought federal court intervention after a state consent order, claiming due process violations. The Court affirmed that Rooker-Feldman bars federal district court jurisdiction over such cases, regardless of pending state appeals.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation.
The Court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district court jurisdiction over cases brought by state-court losers seeking review of state-court judgments, even if pending state appeals exist.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation
The case primarily involves the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which addresses the limits of federal court jurisdiction to review state court judgments.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)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.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation
The petitioner argued that the state court consent order violated her due process rights, which is a central issue in the case.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)T. M. and her parents obtained new counsel and sued respondents in Federal District Court... seeking a declaration that the consent order violated T. M.’s federal and state due-process rights.
-
Why State–Federal Power is relevant to T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation
The case discusses the balance of power between state and federal courts, particularly in terms of jurisdiction and the ability to review state court decisions.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Allowing federal district courts to review state-court judgments while they are on appeal in the state-court system would undermine the '[c]ooperation and comity' on which the Nation’s federal system is built.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation that support the summary and concepts above.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district court jurisdiction over cases brought by state-court losers.
Federal district courts generally lack 'any power to review directly cases from state courts.'
The Court today neither expands nor constrains Rooker-Feldman but leaves the doctrine as it found it.