Breaking Down of Rooker-Feldman and State Immunity for State Caused Problems


Who would have thought Anna Nicole Smith would be so helpful to
us all?

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1544.pdf

This ruling just JUMPED our upcoming county class-actions to the
next level, boys and girls!!

This (Anna Nicole - inheritance/damages - state/federal) case
was about the proper use of federal subject-matter
jurisdiction... and WE WIN!

After an exhaustive review of the 28 pages of this *unanimous*
ruling by the USSC (May 1, 2006 -- a ruling made just earlier
today, that is), here is what they say, in a nutshell:

1 - the "domestic relations exception" is still, and has always
been, a NARROW exception, not to be misused by the lower
federal courts
(obviously, there's more to it, but this case is
a GREAT case), and that it rarely applies...

2 - like the "domestic relations exception", the "probate
exception" used in Anna Nicole's case (a procedurally involved
case, involving both parallel state and federal actions) is
also an often abused "doctrine" by the lower federal courts,
and it's use in Anna's case was struck down as well, with the reasoning being
the same foundations as what the USSC has done before with
the "domestic relations exception"...

3 - some GREAT additional case cites in the ruling itself, like
how the State cannot *cause* a federal violation, and then try
to prohibit litigants from seeking redress in the federal
courts for that/those same violations (i.e., for us in family court reform,
like how the State cannot violate our fundamental rights, and
then try to have us dismissed out of federal court for seeking
vindication of those rights....) (one of my favorites from this
case was: "We have long recognized that "a State cannot create
a transitory cause of action and at the same time
destroy the right to sue on that transitory cause of action in
any court having jurisdiction."
Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. George, 233 U. S. 354, 360
(1914).")

4 - apparently also decided either TODAY, or at most, VERY
recently, was another USSC case seemingly dealing the final
death-blow to the "Rooker-Feldman" doctrine. **this is very
important news to us**
The concurring opinion by Justice
Stevens, wanting to go even FARTHER in striking down
such "abstention doctrines", states, in part:
"Rather than preserving whatever vitality that the "exception"
has retained as a result of the Markham dicta, I would provide
the creature with a decent burial in a grave adjacent to the
resting place of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Lance v.
Dennis, 546 U. S. ___, ___

(2006) (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 2-3)."
In other words, this *other* brand new case ruling, Lance v.
Dennis, apparently terminated all use of Rooker-Feldman
forever...
obviously, I will be reading this case immediately!!

3 cheers for Anna Nicole Smith (and her lawyers) and the USSC,
for we have just been given the GREEN LIGHT to knock 'em dead
in federal courts!!!

Regards,
Torm Howse, President
Indiana Civil Rights Council
http://www.indianacrc.org

MORE:

Loubser -----re: Rooker-Feldman------

In Loubser (pro se) v. Thacker, et al., No. 05-3058 , US Seventh Circuit (Indiana) March 8, 2006, Decided, AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS, stating that Rooker-Feldman did not apply. Loubser, pro se, filed a lawsuit against the judge in the divorce case.
“The grounds on which the district court dismissed Loubser's suit were erroneous. The claim that a defendant in a civil rights suit "so far succeeded in corrupting the state judicial process as to obtain a favorable judgment" is not barred [*6] by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Nesses v. Shepard, 68 F.3d 1003, 1005 (7th Cir. 1995). ...
But Rooker-Feldman does not impose a duty to exhaust judicial and administrative remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights suit.

A state cannot foreclose the exercise of constitutional rights by mere labels.
 
 
 
 BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA, 95 S.Ct. 2222, 421 U.S. 809 (1975)