263 U.S. 413 (1923)
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.
Can a party who has lost in state court seek federal court review claiming a violation of their constitutional rights, effectively asking the federal court to reverse the state court's judgment?
Lower federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review final judgments of state courts in judicial proceedings. The appropriate avenue for such a review is an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from state court decisions. The litigants in the case were attempting to seek what was effectively an appellate review of a state court decision directly in a federal court. The court confirmed that the only federal tribunal capable of reviewing a state court decision is the United States Supreme Court.
The significance of Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. lies in its establishment of a definitive boundary for federal court jurisdiction, known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. This doctrine serves as a critical checkpoint that prevents lower federal courts from acting as appellate bodies for state court decisions. For law students, understanding this case is essential for comprehending how the U.S. judiciary delineates the separation of powers and jurisdictional authority between state and federal courts. It highlights the importance of respecting the procedural routes of appeal and reinforces the idea that only the U.S. Supreme Court can review state court decisions on constitutional grounds.