Judicial Federalism in the Trenches: The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine in Action

Abstract

One little-noticed side effect of the litigation explosion in this country is the exponential growth of federal doctrines designed to simplify complex litigation. Many of these doctrines have been created and applied largely by the lower federal courts-those on the front lines of this kind of litigation-with little guidance from the Supreme Court. Indeed, when the Supreme Court does get around to noticing a problem, it often limits the lower courts' practical solutions without offering any alternatives. One little-noticed side effect of the litigation explosion in this country is the exponential growth of federal doctrines designed to simplify complex litigation. Many of these doctrines have been created and applied largely by the lower federal courts-those on the front lines of this kind of litigation-with little guidance from the Supreme Court. Indeed, when the Supreme Court does get around to noticing a problem, it often limits the lower courts' practical solutions without offering any alternatives. The problem of multiple lawsuits and complex litigation is especially acute when it interacts with questions ofjudicial federalism. Judicial federalism is the aggregation of issues arising from the existence of two sets of American courts, state and federal. The relationship between state and federal courts has vexed our jurisprudence for more than two hundred years, and it continues to evolve. It has given rise to a vast collection of intersecting doctrines that bedevil judges and litigants alike; one court described an interjurisdictional case as having a "procedural posture" with "all of the trappings of a law school examination.