Rooker–Feldman doctrine

Point three, the state supreme court has actually already ruled on this stuff, and if the state supreme court gets stuff wrong, the US Supreme Court is supposed to sit in appellate review of them, not federal district or circuit courts across the street.

This is a doctrine known as Rooker Feldman.

There's some complexities I won't go into about all that, but they are faithless to that.

Point four, we've talked a bunch about Erie and the importance of state law as construed by state courts.

But I think at the end of the day, the question is, what is the goal of these proceedings and what is the review? The review of the Supreme Court's decision should be vertical review.

You know, the original Rooker-Feldman case, and, you know, Rooker is complicated here for a lot of reasons, but the original Rooker-Feldman case is based on the theory.

It's not Feldman, it's Rooker.

Sorry, there was another case called Feldman.

The state wants to go there, and that's the right way to do it.

You don't have horizontal review.

And that's what the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, that's what Younger's all about.

Sorry,

The conservatives who are pushing all of this are saying, "Well, they're not, they're not conflicting orders.

They're totally different parties," uh, which gets to the whole Rooker-Feldman problem here, which is you can't use a state court to collaterally attack, uh, yeah, or I mean, you can't use a federal court-

Federal court

... to collaterally attack a state decision.