Oral Argument: T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation

T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation | Case No. 25-197 | Docket Link: Here

Oral Advocates:

• Petitioner (T.M.): Elizabeth B. Prelogar of Cooley LLP
• Respondents (University of Maryland Medical System Corporation): Lisa S. Blatt of Williams & Connolly LLP

Question Presented: Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine — which blocks federal district courts from reviewing state-court judgments — can apply when the state-court decision remains subject to further appeal in state court.

Overview: A Maryland woman who signed a consent order to secure her release from involuntary psychiatric commitment challenges a federal doctrine that slammed the federal courthouse door before her state-court appeal concluded — dividing the federal circuits.

Posture: Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal under Rooker-Feldman; expressly split from majority of circuits.

Main Arguments:

• T.M. (Petitioner): (1) Rooker-Feldman applies only after state proceedings end, per Exxon Mobil; (2) Section 1257 cannot support a negative inference extending to non-final judgments; (3) Preclusion and abstention doctrines adequately address federalism concerns without a jurisdictional bar

• UMD Medical System (Respondent): (1) Exxon Mobil's four-part test contains no finality requirement; (2) District courts lack appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments regardless of pending review; (3) T.M.'s rule would produce gamesmanship, parallel duplicative litigation, and profound federalism harm

Implications: A T.M. victory gives any state-court loser who raises a constitutional claim an open path to federal district court while state appeals remain pending — broadening federal access but triggering parallel proceedings across two court systems. A UMD victory preserves the rule that state-court losers must exhaust state remedies before federal district courts intervene, reinforcing comity but potentially denying urgent federal relief before the state appellate process concludes. Either outcome reshapes how hundreds of thousands of civil litigants navigate federal courthouse access every year.

The Fine Print:

• 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a): "Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question..."

• 28 U.S.C. § 1331: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

Primary Cases:

• Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (2005): Rooker-Feldman "confined to cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments" — the central precedent both sides claim supports their position.

• Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923): Federal district courts lack power to reverse or modify state-court judgments — one of only two cases where the Supreme Court ever applied Rooker-Feldman to dismiss a federal suit for lack of jurisdiction, and the doctrine's namesake.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Argument Preview

[00:01:15] Oral Advocates

[00:01:27] Argument Begins

[00:01:35] T.M. Opening Statement

[00:03:51] T.M. Free for All Questions

[00:27:56] T.M. Round Robin Questions

[00:42:13] UMD Medical Opening Statement

[00:44:01] UMD Medical Free for All Questions

[00:59:41] UMD Medical Round Robin Questions

[00:59:50] T.M. Rebuttal