Opinion ID: 201605
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relevance of Availability of Supreme Court Review

Text: 16 The close nexus between the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and Supreme Court review prompts an obvious question: what if the Supreme Court could not have reviewed the particular state court decision at issue? Our pre- Exxon Mobil cases suggested that Rooker-Feldman would not apply in this context. See Cruz v. Melecio, 204 F.3d 14, 21 n. 5 (1st Cir.2000) (stating, in dictum, that denying jurisdiction based on a state court judgment that is not eligible for review by the United States Supreme Court simply would not follow from the jurisdictional statute that invigorated the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in the first place); 7 Hill v. Town of Conway, 193 F.3d 33, 40 (1st Cir.1999) (because  Rooker-Feldman is keyed to § 1257, it therefore requires a judgment reviewable by the Supreme Court). Under this logic, the scope of Rooker-Feldman would be limited to state court judgments susceptible to Supreme Court review — in particular, final judgments, not interlocutory orders. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1257 (providing for review of [f]inal judgments or decrees rendered by highest state courts), 1258 (same for Puerto Rico Supreme Court). Arguably, then, under Cruz and Hill, Rooker-Feldman would not apply to interlocutory orders. That is the argument that the Federación makes here. 17