D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman

Citation460 U.S. 462,75 L.Ed.2d 206,103 S.Ct. 1303
Decision Date23 March 1983
Docket NumberNo. 81-1335,81-1335
Parties., Petitioners v. Marc FELDMAN and Edward J. Hickey, Jr
CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Syllabus

Respondents filed petitions in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals asking for waivers of that court's District of Columbia Bar admission rule that requires applicants to have graduated from a law school approved by the American Bar Association. The court issued per curiam orders denying the petitions. Respondents then filed complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the District of Columbia Court of Appeals' denials of their waiver petitions and also challenging the constitutionality of the Bar admission rule. The District Court dismissed the complaints on the ground that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and remanded.

Held:

1. The proceedings before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals were judicial in nature. They involved a "judicial inquiry" in which the court was called upon to investigate, declare, and enforce "liabilities as they [stood] on present or past facts and under laws supposed already to exist." Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 226, 29 S.Ct. 67, 69, 53 L.Ed. 150. With respect to both respondents, the court adjudicated claims of a present right to admission to the Bar. Pp. 476-482.

2. United States district courts have no jurisdiction over challenges to state-court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state court's action was unconstitutional. Review of those decisions may be had only in this Court. Thus, to the extent that respondents sought review in the District Court of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals' denials of their petitions for waiver, the District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over their complaints. But United States district courts do have subject-matter jurisdiction over general challenges to state bar rules promulgated by state courts in nonjudicial proceedings, which do not require review of a final state-court judgment in a particular case. Accordingly, here the District Court has jurisdiction over the elements of respondents' complaints involving a general attack on the constitutionality of the District of Columbia Bar admission rule. Pp. 1314-1317.

213 U.S.App.D.C. 119, 661 F.2d 1295, vacated and remanded.

Daniel A. Rezneck, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.

Robert M. Sussman, Washington, D.C., for respondent Marc Feldman.

Michael F. Healy, Washington, D.C., for respondent Edward J. Hickey, Jr.

Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

We must decide in these cases what authority the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit have to review decisions of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in bar admission matters. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, reversing the United States District Court, held that the District Court had jurisdiction to review the District of Columbia Court of Appeals' denials of the respondents' requests for waivers of a bar admission rule that requires applicants to have graduated from an approved law school. We vacate the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 661 F.2d 1295, and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I

We have discussed in detail in earlier opinions the changes in the structure of the District of Columbia court system effected by the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970. Pub.L. No. 91-358, 84 Stat. 473. See Key v. Doyle, 434 U.S. 59, 98 S.Ct. 280, 54 L.Ed.2d 238 (1977); Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389, 93 S.Ct. 1670, 36 L.Ed.2d 342 (1973). For purposes of this case, three provisions of that legislation are crucial. One provision made "final judgments and decrees of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals . . . reviewable by the Supreme Court of the United States in accordance with section 1257 of title 28, United States Code." § 111, 84 Stat. 475 (codified at D.C.Code § 11-102 (1981)). Another provision amended 28 U.S.C. § 1257 to specify that the term "highest court of a state" as used in § 1257 includes the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. § 172(a)(1), 84 Stat. 590. These provisions make the judgments of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, like the judgments of state courts, directly reviewable in this Court. Cases no longer have to proceed from the local courts to the United States Court of Appeals and then to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1254. See Key v. Doyle, supra, 434 U.S., at 64, 98 S.Ct., at 283. The third provision authorized the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to "make such rules as it deems proper respecting the examination, qualification, and admission of persons to membership in its bar, and their censure, suspension, and expulsion." § 111, 84 Stat. 521 (codified at D.C.Code § 11-2501(a) (1981)). This provision divested the United States District Court of its former authority to supervise admission to the District of Columbia bar.

Pursuant to its new rulemaking authority, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals adopted, as part of its general rules, Rule 46 I (1973), which governs admission to the bar. Rule 46 I(b)(3) states:

(3) Proof of Legal Education. An applicant who has graduated from a law school that at the time of graduation was approved by the American Bar Association or who shall be eligible to be graduated from an approved law school within 60 days of the date of the examination will be permitted to take the bar examination. Under no circumstances shall an applicant be admitted to the bar without having first submitted to the Secretary to the Committee [on Admissions] a certificate verifying that he has graduated from an approved law school.1

Neither of the respondents graduated from an approved law school. Their efforts to avoid the operation of Rule 46 I(b)(3) form the foundation of this case.

A.

Respondent Feldman did not attend law school. Instead, he pursued an alternative path to a legal career provided by the State of Virginia involving a highly structured program of study in the office of a practicing attorney. See Va.Code § 54-62 (1982). In addition to his work and study at a law firm in Charlottesville, Virginia, Feldman formally audited classes at the University of Virginia School of Law. For the final six months of his alternative course of study, Feldman served as a law clerk to a United States District Judge.

Having passed the Virginia bar examination, Feldman was admitted to that state's bar in April, 1976. In March of that year he had begun working as a staff attorney for the Baltimore, Maryland Legal Aid Bureau. He continued in that job until January, 1977. Like the District of Columbia, Maryland has a rule limiting access to the bar examination to graduates of ABA-approved law schools, but the Maryland Board of Law Examiners waived the rule for Feldman. Feldman passed the Maryland examination and later was admitted to that state's bar.

In November, 1976 Feldman applied to the Committee on Admissions of the District of Columbia Bar for admission to the District bar under a rule which, prior to its recent amendment, allowed a member of a bar in another jurisdiction to seek membership in the District bar without examina- tion. In January, 1977 the Committee denied Feldman's application on the ground that he had not graduated from an approved law school. Initially, the Committee stated that waivers of Rule 46 I(b)(3), or exceptions to it, were not authorized. Following further contact with the Committee, however, Feldman was granted an informal hearing. After the hearing, the Committee reaffirmed its denial of Feldman's application and stated that only the District of Columbia Court of Appeals could waive the requirement of graduation from an approved law school.

In June, 1977 Feldman submitted to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals a petition for admission to the bar without examination. App. 1. Alternatively, Feldman requested that he be allowed to sit for the bar examination. App. 5. In his petition, Feldman described his legal training, work experience, and other qualifications. He suggested that his professional training and education were "equal to that received by those who have attended an A.B.A. approved law school." App. 4. In view of his training, experience, and success in passing the bar examinations in other jurisdictions, Feldman stated that "the objectives of the District of Columbia's procedures and requirements for admission to the Bar will not be frustrated by granting this petition." Ibid.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals did not act on Feldman's petition for several months. In March, 1978, Feldman's counsel wrote to the Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to urge favorable action on Feldman's petition. The letter stated that Feldman had "abundantly demonstrated his fitness to practice law" and suggested that "it would be a gross injustice to exclude him from the Bar without even considering his individual qualifications." App. 6. The letter went on to state that "in the unique circumstances of his case, barring Mr. Feldman from the practice of law merely because he has not graduated from an accredited law school would raise important questions under the United States Constitution and the federal antitrust laws—questions that Mr. Feldman is prepared to pursue in the United States District Court if necessary." App. 6-7. In support of Feldman's position, the letter again stressed the strength of his training and the breadth of his experience. While acknowledging that a strict reading of Rule 46...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8889 cases
  • Johnson v. Byrd, 1:16cv1052
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Middle District of North Carolina
    • November 21, 2016
    ...of jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. Derived from the Supreme Court's decisions in District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), the Rooker-Feldman doctrine generally prohibitsPage 16 lower federal courts fr......
  • U.S. Bank N.A. v. Crawford, SC 19903
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 26, 2019
    ...Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149, 68 L. Ed. 362 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983). Rooker held that federal statutory jurisdiction over direct appeals from state courts lies exclusive......
  • Choudhuri v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No: C 11-00518 SBA
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • October 25, 2011
    ...derives its name from two Supreme Court cases: Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 8. In light of this determination, the Court does not reach Defendants' alternative request to stay the action under the Colorado River......
  • Ohio VALLEY Envtl. Coal. INC. v. COAL-MAC INC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Southern District of West Virginia
    • March 31, 2011
    ...two separate Supreme Court cases, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). It stems from the statutory limitations on appellate review of state court decisions found in 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a): "Final judgment ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • The Sign of the Three—Text Rules: SCOTUS Today
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • April 20, 2023
    ...by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine [see Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U. S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U. S. 462 (1983)]. That doctrine prohibits federal courts from adjudicating cases brought by state-court losing parties challenging state-court judgm......
  • Seventh Circuit Applies What Is Left Of The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 31, 2014
    ...much is left of the holdings of Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), and of the eponymous Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but what remains was the subject of the Seventh Circuit's recent decision in Harold v. ......
  • Nurse Using Abusive Language Toward Hospital Administrator On Facebook Justifies Firing
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 18, 2014
    ...to review the final determinations of a state court in juridical proceedings. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The breach of contract claim was dismissed because the plaintiff, as a member of a collective bargaining unit, cannot claim a breach of th......
12 books & journal articles
  • QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: TIME TO CHANGE THE MESSAGE.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 93 No. 5, May 2018
    • May 1, 2018
    ...in the judgment). (26) The doctrine takes its name from two Supreme Court decisions. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). As Professor Rowe put it in his introduction to the Issue, the doctrine "restsinno......
  • Issues Relating to Parallel Litigation
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook Business tort litigation
    • January 1, 2014
    ...Oil Co., 511 F.3d 788, 795 (8th Cir. 2008); Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Gross, 468 F.3d 199, 211 (4th Cir. 2006). 116. 263 U.S. 413 (1923). 117. 460 U.S. 462 (1983). Issues Relating to Parallel Litigation 391 a federal court’s lack of jurisdiction to review a state court’s judgment. In Rooker and......
  • Forum shopping for arbitration decisions: federal courts' use of antisuit injunctions against state courts.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 147 No. 1, November 1998
    • November 1, 1998
    ...Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140, 145-46 (1988) (noting the United States's dual court system); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983) (stating that lower federal courts may not hear appeals from state courts). For a discussion of the Full Faith and Credit statu......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • January 1, 2007
    ...273 U.S. 34, 47 S.Ct. 267, 71 L.Ed. 544 (1927), 867 District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 469 U .S. 462, 103 S.Ct.. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983), Dixon, United States v., 509 U.S. 688, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), 1017 Dixon v. United States, 126 S.Ct. 2437, 165 L.Ed.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT