Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (2006)
Primary Holding
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar federal jurisdiction over cases brought by state-court losers challenging state-court judgments rendered before the federal proceedings commenced.
In the case of Lance v. Dennis, the Supreme Court decided that people who lose in state court can still bring their cases to federal court if they believe the state court's decision was wrong. This is important because it gives consumers a chance to seek justice at a higher level if they feel their rights were not protected in state court. This case is relevant if you’ve lost a case in state court and want to challenge that decision in federal court, as it confirms that you have the right to do so.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (2006), the underlying dispute arose from a series of legal challenges related to congressional redistricting in Colorado following the 2000 census, which resulted in the state gaining an additional seat in the House of Representatives. Initially, when the Colorado General Assembly failed to pass a redistricting plan for the 2002 elections, a group of voters petitioned the state courts to create a plan, leading to the Colorado Supreme Court ordering a new electoral map. Subsequently, the General Assembly enacted its own redistricting plan in 2003, which prompted further litigation regarding which map should be used for elections. The procedural history of the case involved multiple rounds of litigation, culminating in a federal district court case where plaintiffs, dissatisfied with the Colorado Supreme Court's decision in Salazar, sought to compel the secretary of state to adopt the legislature's redistricting plan. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal courts from reviewing state court judgments. However, the Supreme Court ultimately vacated the district court's judgment, ruling that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar the plaintiffs from proceeding with their claims. The relevant background context includes the Colorado Supreme Court's interpretation of Article V, §44 of the Colorado Constitution, which limited congressional redistricting to once per decade. This interpretation was central to the litigation, as it affected the legitimacy of the legislative redistricting plan. The case reflects ongoing tensions between state and federal electoral laws and the complexities of redistricting processes, particularly in the context of changing political landscapes and population distributions.
Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by state-court losers challenging state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.
The judgment is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- February 21, 2006
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005)
Consumer LostDefendants may remove a civil action from state court to federal court based on diversity of citizenship if there is complete diversity between all named plaintiffs and all named defendants, and no defendant is a citizen of the forum State; it is not the responsibility of the named defendants to prove the nonexistence of a potential defendant whose presence would destroy diversity.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Rooker-Feldman doctrine is limited to cases where state-court losers seek to challenge state court judgments in federal court, and it does not extend to other situations that would override preclusion law or allow federal courts to dismiss cases in deference to state court actions.
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006)
Consumer LostThe Supreme Court held that claims of partisan gerrymandering are non-justiciable under the Constitution, meaning that federal courts do not have the authority to adjudicate such claims, while also affirming that certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act may still apply to specific districts.
Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005)
Consumer WonA federal district court has the discretion to stay a mixed petition for habeas corpus to allow a petitioner to exhaust unexhausted claims in state court before returning to federal court for review.