Document: 546 U.S. 459 (2006) LANCE ET AL. v. DENNIS, COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE No. 05-555. Supreme Court of United States. Decided February 21, 2006. *460 PER CURIAM. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents the lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by "state-court losers" challenging judgments rendered before district court proceedings commenced." Exxon Mobil Corp. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 280, 284 (2005). In this case, District dismissed plaintiffs' suit on ground that they were in privity with a state-court loser. We hold does not bar plaintiffs proceeding, and vacate Court's judgment. I This is latest several rounds litigation involving State Colorado's congressional redistricting after 2000 census, under which gained seat House Representatives. Lance Davidson, 379 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1121 first round began May 2001. When Colorado General Assembly failed to pass plan for 2002 elections close its regular session, group voters asked state create plan. agreed, drawing new map reflecting additional district. See Beauprez Avalos, 42 P.3d 642 (Colo. 2002) (en banc). held using court-ordered passed own spring 2003, prompting further litigationthis time about electoral was govern, legislature's or courts'. Two suits filed seeking enjoin plan: an original action attorney general require secretary use plan, similar proponents 2d, at 1121. After intervened defend *461 violated Article V, § 44, Constitution, construed limit "once per decade." People ex rel. Salazar 79 1221, 1231 (2003) It therefore ordered court-created denied certiorari. 541 1093 (2004). second removed defendants basis federal-law claims. Keller 299 1171, 1175 2004). Once decided Court, viability defendants' counterclaims only remaining issue. A three-judge barred amending their assert challenges decision Salazar. also counterclaims, while doctrine, precluded law judgment Accordingly, case. Finally, suit: Before dismissal Keller, citizens unhappy plan.[1] argued as interpreted Elections Clause I, 4, Constitution ("The Times, Places Manner holding Senators Representatives, shall be prescribed each Legislature thereof"), First Amendment's Petition ("Congress make no ... abridging right people . petition Government redress grievances"). motion dismiss, arguing *462 preclusion any attack had valid claim. ruled it hear 1127. explained, includes three requirements: (1) "[T]he party against whom invoked must have actually been prior such party"; (2) "the claim raised inextricably intertwined judgment"; (3) parallel claim." 1124. found requirement satisfied citizen-plaintiffs Assemblya losing Relying our decisions Washington Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn., 443 658 (1979), Tacoma Taxpayers Tacoma, 357 320 (1958), stated "when government litigates matter public concern, state's will deemed purposes." 1125. principle, reasoned, applies "with equal force context." Ibid. went conclude Salazar, decision, claims presented As claim, neither nor prevented proceeding merits, but 1132; see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6). appealed. 28 U.S.C. 1253. now note jurisdiction, address whether *463 bars because not, Court. II vested, 1257, appeals final judgments. grant exclusive: "Review may Court." Columbia Appeals Feldman, 460 462, 482 (1983) (emphasis added); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. Locomotive Engineers, 398 281, 286 (1970); Rooker Fidelity Trust Co., 263 413, 416 (1923). what has come known are appellate takes name two we applied rule find Federal lacked jurisdiction. Rooker, who lost Indiana obtain review constitutionality viewed tantamount appeal said "aggrieved litigant cannot permitted do indirectly he longer can directly." U.S., 416. 60 years later, concerned slightly different circumstances, results. there refused admission Appeals, sought these Our extent challenged themselvesas opposed rules promulgated nonjudicially Appealstheir sole avenue 476. *464 Neither Feldman elaborated rationale wide-reaching courts, since tended emphasize narrowness rule. Mobil, 292 (Rooker-Feldman apply litigation); Verizon Md. Inc. Public Serv. Comm'n Md., 535 635, 644, n. 3 (2002) "has application judicial executive action, including determinations made administrative agency"); Johnson De Grandy, 512 997, 1005-1006 (1994) actions nonparty earlier suit). Indeed, during period, "this never dismiss want jurisdiction." supra, 287. last Term, warned times extended "far beyond contours cases, overriding Congress' conferral federal-court concurrent exercised superseding ordinary pursuant 1738." 283. Rooker-Feldman, narrow confined "cases losers complaining injuries caused commenced inviting rejection those judgments." 284. Although addressed precise question us, inapplicable where underlying proceeding. 1006. Florida sought, prevent States bringing challenge 2 Voting Rights Act 1965 reapportionment districts. initiated *465 general, already declared law. did "was court," position ask court's directly attacked proceeding." case plainly parties state, intervened. P.3d, 1227. four here participate "position judgment." 1006; Karcher May, 484 72, 77 (1987) ("[T]he [is] one treated therefrom"). recognized "general rule" "Rooker-Feldman plaintiff judgment," 1123, nevertheless followed Tenth Circuit precedent allowing 1123 (citing Kenmen Eng. Union, 314 F.3d 468, 481 (2002)). determining existed, looked concerning preclusive effect required give 1125 Washington, 693, 32; 340-341). concluded thatfor well purposes"the outcome government's concern binds citizens." *466 erroneously conflated Rooker-Feldman. Whatever impact principles rules, simply another name. "limited circumstances," 291, seeks take unfavorable court. nonparties because, purposes law, could considered judgment.[2] more expansive would tend supplant mandate, Full Faith Credit Act, 1738, "`give same given emerged.'" Baker Motors 522 222, 246 (1998) (quoting Kremer Chemical Constr. 456 461, 466 (1982)); 293. Congress directed look principally deciding Incorporation into risks turning limited uniform governing judgments, contrary Act.[3] *467 * vacated, remanded consistent opinion. so ordered. JUSTICE GINSBURG, SOUTER joins, concurring. agree full correction error, join STEVENS persuasively urged issue warrants affirmance, post, 468-469 (dissenting opinion), seems me best left airing remand. STEVENS, dissenting. strange bedfellows. unanimous, three-page opinion written Justice Van Devanter 1923, correctly simple legal proposition exercise nonunanimous, 25-page Brennan 1983, incorrectly generated plethora confusion debate among scholars judges.[*] *468 462; id., 488 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Last Ginsburg's lucid 280 (2005), finally interred so-called doctrine." And today, quite properly disapproves resuscitation produced nothing mischief 23 years. My disagreement majority arises decides, fails address. Even though mistakenly believed matter, dismissing cause prejudice correct should affirmed. 1132 2005). advanced citizen-appellants official representatives 1231-1232 (2003). 1126. appellee points out, appellants' "is literally certiorari (and denied) Salazar." Motion Affirm 12. And, appellants clearly both then-Colorado Attorney behalf Colorado, Assembly, *469 litigation. McNichols City & County Denver, 101 Colo. 316, 322, 74 P.2d 99, 102 (1937) banc) (finding between taxpayers validity bond "charged ministerial duties connection" issuance bonds suit); Atchison, T. S. Board Comm'rs Fremont, 95 435, 441, 37 761, 764 (1934) (explaining political division representative if involves "a interest all people"). Thus, requirements met, dismissed. generally 1738; Michaelson Michaelson, 884 695, 700-701 1994) (setting forth law). Appellants' spurious 1130-1132. Nothing petitioning grievances, 1131; guarantees effective, Smith Highway Employees, 441 463, 465 (1979) (per curiam); Minnesota Bd. Community Colleges Knight, 271, 285 (1984). Moreover, recognized, interpretation lead absurd 1131-1132. such, upon relief granted. For foregoing reasons respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] defended following she agreed allow represent her. 1122, [2] need however limited, named proceedinge. g., estate de facto decedent. [3] disposes reach, other 1221 2003) resolution merits [*] See, e. Comment, Collateral Estoppel Doctrine: Problematic Effect These Preclusion Jurisdictional Principles Have Bankruptcy Law, 21 Emory Bankr. Dev. J. 579 (2005); Toward Workable Role, 149 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1555 (2001); Proctor, Wirth, Spencer, Quandary, Fla. Coastal 113 (2000); Rowley, Survey, Mere Superfluous Nuance Vital Civil Procedure Doctrine? An Analysis Circuit's Decision Rodrigues, 78 Denver 321 Symposium, Doctrine, Notre Dame 1081 (1999); Pfander, Intermediate Solution Sovereign Immunity: Appellate Review State-Court Judgments Seminole Tribe, 46 UCLA 161 (1998); Recent Case, Ninth Ignores Federalism Bates Jones, 131 843 (9th Cir. 1997) banc), Harv. Pub. Pol'y 881 Schmucker, Possible Application Doctrine Agency Decisions: Seventh Opinion Harken Chicago, 17 Nat. Assn. Admin. Judges 333 (1997); Casenote, Texaco, Pennzoil Co.: Beyond Crude Doctrine's Jurisdiction, 41 Miami 627 (1987); Some Thoughts Limits Power Over Proceedings, 54 Ford. 767 (1986).

Category: 8