Rooker-Feldman bars federal district court jurisdiction over direct attacks on state-court judgments regardless of finality under state appellate processes.

1) The question: May a federal district court entertain a lawsuit that seeks to declare a state-court judgment void and enjoin its enforcement when that judgment is still pending on appeal in state court? 2) Relevant constitutional text: Article III, Section 2 vests the judicial power in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress may establish. The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over cases from state courts, but the Constitution does not confer any appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments to lower federal courts. Congress, under the Judiciary Act of 1789 and its successors, has never granted such jurisdiction. 3) Ratification-era understanding: The Framers understood that the Supreme Court would be the sole federal tribunal with authority to review state-court decisions, as Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 81: 'If there are such things as political axioms, this proposition may be considered; and it is to be taken for granted, that the inferior courts of the States, are not invested with any jurisdiction, either original or appellate, over the decisions of the State tribunals.' The district courts are courts of strictly original jurisdiction. 4) Holding: The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, correctly understood from the text and original meaning, bars federal district courts from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over cases that are 'at bottom' direct attacks on state-court judgments, regardless of whether the judgment is final under 28 U.S.C. § 1257. The doctrine applies even if the state judgment remains subject to further review in state appellate courts. 5) Downstream effects: Consistent with this textual foundation, the doctrine is narrowly confined to cases where the federal plaintiff seeks to reverse or modify a state-court judgment. Independent claims that are not ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state judgment remain cognizable. The exhaustion of state remedies is encouraged, but not required, for Rooker-Feldman purposes; the doctrine turns on the nature of the relief sought, not the stage of state proceedings.