By Michael Phillips | People’s Law Review
In federal civil-rights litigation arising out of custody disputes and protective orders, one phrase appears with almost ritual frequency:
“The court lacks jurisdiction under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine.”
For parents challenging unconstitutional conduct in family court—lack of notice, fabricated evidence, denial of counsel, ADA violations—this doctrine often becomes a procedural dead end. But that outcome is not inevitable. In fact, the Rooker–Feldman doctrine is narrow, frequently misapplied, and regularly confused with other doctrines that serve different purposes altogether.
This article explains what Rooker–Feldman actually is, how it is applied (and misapplied) in custody and protective-order cases, how it differs from Younger abstention, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, and how plaintiffs have successfully pushed back.
I. What Rooker–Feldman Actually Says (and What It Does Not)
The Rooker–Feldman doctrine comes from two U.S. Supreme Court decisions:
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
Together, these cases establish a simple rule:
Lower federal courts may not act as appellate courts reviewing final state-court judgments.
Only the U.S. Supreme Court may review state-court judgments, through certiorari.
The Modern Limitation (Often Ignored)
In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., the Supreme Court sharply narrowed the doctrine:
Rooker–Feldman applies only to cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments and inviting federal court review and rejection of those judgments.
This limitation is critical—and frequently ignored in family-law cases.
II. Applying Rooker–Feldman to Custody and Protective Orders
When Rooker–Feldman does apply
A federal court lacks jurisdiction only if all three conditions are met:
- The plaintiff lost in state court
- The plaintiff complains of an injury caused by the state-court judgment itself
- The plaintiff asks the federal court to review, reverse, void, or nullify that judgment
Example (barred):
“The custody order is wrong. The federal court should reverse it and give me custody.”
That is a direct appeal in disguise.
When Rooker–Feldman does not apply (the critical distinction)
Rooker–Feldman does not bar claims where:
- The injury flows from constitutional violations, not the judgment itself
- The claim challenges how the judgment was obtained, not whether it was correct
- The plaintiff seeks damages or prospective relief, not reversal
- The misconduct involves fraud, coercion, fabrication, or denial of due process
Example (not barred):
“The court issued a protective order without notice, without sworn testimony, and without allowing me to be heard, violating my Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights.”
The injury here is procedural and constitutional, not the existence of the order itself.
III. Why Family Courts and Federal Courts Misuse Rooker–Feldman
In custody and protective-order cases, courts often collapse complex claims into a single caricature:
“You’re just unhappy with the state-court result.”
This is legally incorrect.
Common misuse patterns
- Treating any connection to a custody order as a jurisdictional bar
- Ignoring whether the injury predates or exists independently of the judgment
- Using Rooker–Feldman as a shortcut instead of analyzing federal claims on the merits
- Conflating Rooker–Feldman with abstention or preclusion doctrines
The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against this expansion, yet family-court-related cases remain one of the doctrine’s most abused contexts.
IV. Rooker–Feldman vs. Other Doctrines (Often Confused)
Understanding the differences matters—because courts frequently cite the wrong doctrine, or stack them improperly.
1. Rooker–Feldman vs. Younger Abstention
- Younger abstention (from Younger v. Harris) applies when state proceedings are ongoing.
- Rooker–Feldman applies only to final state-court judgments.
Key distinction:
- Younger = “We won’t interfere yet.”
- Rooker–Feldman = “We can’t review at all.”
If a custody or protective-order case is still pending or modifiable, Rooker–Feldman should not apply.
2. Rooker–Feldman vs. Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)
- Res judicata is not jurisdictional
- It asks whether a claim was or could have been litigated previously
Courts must first confirm jurisdiction before applying res judicata.
They cannot use Rooker–Feldman as a substitute for claim-preclusion analysis.
3. Rooker–Feldman vs. Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion)
- Collateral estoppel applies only to specific issues actually litigated and decided
- Many family-court proceedings—especially ex parte protective orders—do not meet this standard
An ex parte order without testimony or cross-examination typically cannot preclude federal issues later.
V. How Plaintiffs Push Back Successfully
Litigants who overcome improper Rooker–Feldman dismissals usually do three things:
1. Define the injury precisely
Successful pleadings avoid language that sounds like an appeal.
Instead of:
“The custody order harmed me.”
They say:
“The lack of notice, denial of counsel, and refusal to hear evidence violated my constitutional rights.”
2. Separate relief from reversal
Courts are more receptive when plaintiffs seek:
- Declaratory relief
- Injunctions against future unconstitutional practices
- Damages for past violations
—not custody modification.
3. Cite Exxon Mobil and Supreme Court limits explicitly
Courts often retreat when forced to confront binding precedent narrowing the doctrine.
VI. Why This Matters
Rooker–Feldman was never intended to insulate family courts from constitutional scrutiny. Yet in practice, it has become a procedural shield—used to dismiss claims without discovery, without factual development, and without accountability.
For parents challenging unlawful protective orders, discriminatory treatment, or due-process failures, understanding this doctrine is not academic—it is essential.
Federal courts are not barred from hearing constitutional claims simply because a family court was involved.
They are barred only from acting as appellate courts over state judgments.
That distinction is the difference between accountability and impunity.
People’s Law Review
Explaining the doctrines that quietly decide lives.
The People's Law Review 