In the case of District of Columbia Court of Appeals et al. v. Feldman et al., 1982, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review decisions made by state courts in judicial proceedings and cannot interfere with those decisions through injunctive or declaratory relief. The case arose when two individuals who had been denied admission to the D.C bar without having attended an accredited law school sued in federal court, alleging that this rule violated antitrust laws and their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court held that these claims were essentially appeals from a state court decision and thus could not be heard in federal court due to principles of comity and respect for state judicial systems embodied in Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

In the dissenting opinion for District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision to deny federal courts jurisdiction over state court decisions was overly broad and restrictive. He contended that this ruling would prevent individuals from seeking federal review in cases where they believed their constitutional rights had been violated by a state court. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 28 U.S.C §1257, arguing it should not be read as an absolute bar on jurisdiction but rather as a guide for determining when such jurisdiction is appropriate. In his view, denying all forms of federal review could potentially lead to serious injustices and undermine public confidence in the judicial system.