Alito, Kavanaugh and Thomas Join 2 Liberals in Unusual Supreme Court Split
Summary
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal district courts cannot review or overturn decisions made by state courts while those decisions are still being appealed in the state system. The ruling involved an unusual grouping of justices from both conservative and liberal backgrounds and focused on the limits of judicial power between state and federal courts.Key Facts
- Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas joined Justices Sotomayor and Jackson in a majority opinion on the case T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System.
- The case involved T.M., who was involuntarily held in a hospital and forcibly medicated after a gluten-triggered psychosis.
- T.M. and her parents settled a state case to facilitate her release with conditions, including dropping all pending cases against the hospital.
- After the settlement, they filed a new federal lawsuit challenging the consent order as a violation of due process rights.
- The lower federal court dismissed the case based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which says federal district courts cannot review state court judgments.
- The Supreme Court upheld this doctrine, ruling that federal courts cannot intervene even if the state judgment is still being appealed in state courts.
- Justice Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion explaining that the doctrine applies broadly and only the Supreme Court can review state court decisions.
- The University of Maryland Medical System stated the ruling clarifies how state court proceedings are legally managed.
Read the Full Article
This is a fact-based summary from The Actual News. Click below to read the complete story directly from the original source.