Facts of the Case

Provided by Oyez

After being involuntarily committed to a Maryland hospital, T.M. secured her release through a settlement that a state court entered as a consent order conditioning her freedom on continued psychiatric treatment and medication. Days later she and her parents sued in federal court, claiming the consent order was unconstitutional and entered under duress, while the order remained reviewable in Maryland's courts. The district court dismissed under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Questions

  1. Can the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents parties who lose in state courts from challenging injuries caused by state-court judgments, be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court?

Conclusions

  1. On June 18, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held 5-4 in T. M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts from reviewing and rejecting state-court judgments even when those judgments remain subject to further review in state court.