The underlying dispute involves a Maryland woman identified as T.M., who was involuntarily admitted to Baltimore Washington Medical Center in 2023 following a psychotic episode. After three months of treatment, T.M., her family, and hospital representatives negotiated a settlement that allowed her release in exchange for continuing prescribed medication and seeing a new psychiatrist. The state judge entered this agreement as a consent order, which T.M. subsequently challenged in federal court and on appeal to Maryland’s intermediate appellate court.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Monday in T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System to determine if the federal lawsuit can proceed or if it is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Lower courts held that federal district courts lack authority to review state-court judgments, a principle Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg summarized in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. as barring cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.
The specific question before the justices was whether Rooker-Feldman applies when the state-court judgment remains subject to further review in state courts. Lisa Blatt, arguing for the hospital and health system, contended that Congress intended to prevent federal review of state-court judgments until a state’s highest court has had the opportunity to correct errors. She argued that allowing lower federal courts to review a judgment still under state appellate review would damage the integrity of the state appellate process.
Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing for T.M., offered a different reading of the federal statute governing Supreme Court review of state-court judgments. She contended that the statute addresses only the Supreme Court’s ability to review final judgments of a state high court, not district court jurisdiction when no such final judgment exists. Prelogar emphasized the value of ensuring federal courts remain available to vindicate federal rights, even when state-court judgments themselves give rise to constitutional violations.
Several justices expressed skepticism about the clarity of Rooker-Feldman, noting that lower courts struggle to apply it. Justice Samuel Alito questioned the rational basis for distinguishing between cases where state court proceedings have concluded and those still ongoing. Justice Elena Kagan observed that while many things have confounded lower courts on Rooker-Feldman, she was not sure the specific question presented was one of them.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Brett Kavanaugh pressed Prelogar on the value of having a federal district court and a state appellate court simultaneously reviewing a state-court judgment. The justices also discussed the possibility of overruling Rooker-Feldman altogether, though it was not a question presented in the case. Prelogar described the doctrine as “egregiously wrong” and out of sync with modern precedent, while Blatt urged the court not to overrule it.
The court’s ruling is expected by early July.