RESPONDENT:Gigi Dennis, Colorado Secretary of State
LOCATION:Board of Immigration Appeals
DOCKET NO.: 05-555
DECIDED BY: Roberts Court (2006-2009)
LOWER COURT: Federal district court
CITATION: 546 US 459 (2006)
DECIDED: Feb 21, 2006
Facts of the case
When the Colorado legislature failed to pass a redistricting plan in 2000, the state courts created one at the request of a group of voters. The legislature succeeded in passing a redistricting plan in 2003. The state attorney general brought suit in the Colorado State Supreme Court to require the secretary of state to use the court-ordered plan, and the Colorado General Assembly defended its own plan. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the legislature’s plan violated Article V of the State Constitution. A group of citizens including Keith Lance brought another suit in federal court alleging that Article V of the Colorado Constitution, as interpreted by the Colorado Supreme Court, violated the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Under the Supreme Court’sRooker-Feldman doctrine, no federal court except the Supreme Court may hear appeals from state courts. The District Court held that since Lance was in privity with the General Assembly – that is, their claims were similar enough to constitute a mutual interest – Lance’s suit was in effect an appeal of the General Assembly’s loss in state court. Therefore, the District Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction under theRooker-Feldman doctrine and declined to hear the case.
Does theRooker-Feldman doctrine preclude plaintiffs from bringing suit in federal court when they are in privity with a party that lost in state court?