October Term 2025 · Docket 25-197
How far does the rule barring federal courts from overturning state judgments reach?
The Supreme Court is weighing when federal district courts may revisit a state court judgment under the Rooker-Feldman rule.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Prelogar argued the suit is a collateral attack, not an appeal, and that district courts lack appellate jurisdiction over state judgments. She requested reversal.
Justice Thomas probed appellate jurisdiction and agency-versus-judgment review. Justice Sotomayor tested what voiding means. Justice Jackson tested reconsidering Rooker-Feldman, and Justice Alito tested overruling it without a request.
A justice's question is not a vote. Oral argument is not a decision.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-9 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 53-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 53-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 35-15 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 35-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-55 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 17-21
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Rooker-Feldman generally bars federal district courts from overturning a state court judgment. The question is how far that rule reaches.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-9 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 53-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 53-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 35-15 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 35-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-55 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 17-21
How the case got here
Ms. Prelogar presented the argument for the side that brought the case, and the Chief Justice called for her rebuttal.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-9 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 35-15 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 35-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 17-21
What each side wants
the side that brought the case asked the Court to reverse the lower court's decision. The record does not describe a separate requested result for the other side.
the side that brought the case conceded the suit is a collateral attack on the state judgment, while maintaining it differs from an appeal. She argued collateral attacks are new cases that can involve new evidence, cannot vacate the state judgment, and face preclusion defenses. She also said district courts can only exercise original jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 35-15 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 35-15
What each side says
the side that brought the case's answers show the stakes. In a collateral challenge, a district court cannot vacate or revise a state judgment. Remedies stay limited to declarations or injunctions controlling the parties before the court. That shapes what relief litigants can seek.
Justice Thomas asked whether a district court has appellate jurisdiction and how reviewing an agency decision differs from reviewing a court judgment. Justice Sotomayor clarified what the other side meant by review and reject. Justice Jackson asked about reconsidering Rooker-Feldman as a backup. Justice Alito questioned overruling it when the petition did not request that.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 35-15 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 35-15
What the justices asked
The Chief Justice submitted the case. The Court will issue its decision later.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 45-9
Why it matters
:[]}
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-9 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 53-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 53-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 35-15 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 35-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-55 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 17-21
What the Court decided
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which explains that federal district courts cannot act as appeals courts to review state-court judgments. Applies even when the state judgment is still being appealed in state court. T. M.'s federal suit asked the district court to strike down the consent order from her state case, which is exactly the kind of review federal district courts may not do.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit's judgment, which had upheld the dismissal of T. M.'s federal lawsuit.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 2, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 2, lines 1-1
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 4, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 4, lines 1-1
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
- Official Court disposition document (date not established)
- Official Court disposition document (date not established)
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-9 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 53-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 53-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 35-15 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 35-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-55 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-9 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 53-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 53-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 35-15 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 35-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-55 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 17-21
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 3 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Removed an unsupported statement that the Court had not ruled; the available source set did not establish that absence.
- Revision 4 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Corrected unsupported no-ruling language and clarified that the article's disposition summary is incomplete.
- Revision 5 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.
- Revision 6 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.
- Revision 7 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.