T. M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp.

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
T. M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp.
Docket number: 25-197
Term: 2025
Court: United States Supreme Court
Important dates
Argument: April 20, 2026
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson

T. M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp. is a case scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 20, 2026, during the court's October 2025-2026 term.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The questions presented: "Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court."[1]
  • The outcome: The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[2]

    • Petitioner: T. M.
      • Legal counsel: Kannon K. Shanmugam
    • Respondent: University of Maryland Medical System Corporation, et al.
      • Legal counsel: Lisa S. Blatt

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez, a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and the Chicago-Kent College of Law:[3]

    “ In March 2023, T.M., a woman with a rare medical condition that triggers psychosis upon consuming gluten, was involuntarily committed to Baltimore Washington Medical Center after an episode. Her treating psychiatrist sought and received state approval to forcibly administer antipsychotic medication; T.M. contested this but was unsuccessful in administrative proceedings. Independent psychiatrists later stated that T.M. no longer required inpatient care. To secure her release, T.M. and the hospital negotiated an oral agreement, which was formalized as a state court consent order. The order allowed her to leave the hospital on the condition that she comply with ongoing psychiatric treatment and medications, switch providers, and drop pending lawsuits. Her parents, J.M. and A.M., were also bound to notify authorities if she failed to comply.

    Ten days later, represented by new counsel, T.M. and her parents filed the present federal lawsuit claiming that the consent order was unconstitutional and entered under duress. They challenged the order as violating T.M.’s due process rights and sought declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating its enforcement. They did not request damages or challenge the initial commitment decisions.

    The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the lawsuit. It held that T.M.’s claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents parties who lose in state courts from challenging injuries caused by state-court judgments, because they amounted to a request for federal review of a state court judgment. It also dismissed the parents’ claims for failure to state a constitutional violation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, concluding that T.M. was a ‘state-court loser’ seeking to undo a state judgment still reviewable in Maryland courts. Nonetheless, it remanded for the district court to modify T.M.’s dismissal to be without prejudice, due to lack of jurisdiction.[4]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • April 20, 2026: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument.
    • December 5, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • August 15, 2025: T.M. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • June 4, 2025: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland’s judgment. But the court of appeals vacated the district court’s dismissal of T.M.’s claims with prejudice and remanded their decision with instructions for the district court to dismiss those claims without prejudice.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court.[4] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of the case will be posted here when it is made available.

    Transcript

    A transcript of the case will be posted here when it is made available.

    Outcome

    The case is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    October term 2025-2026

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 6, 2025. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions by mid-June.[5]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "25-197 T. M. V. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MEDICAL SYSTEM CORP. QP", December 5, 2025
    2. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 25-197," accessed February 10, 2026
    3. ↑ Oyez, "T. M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp.," accessed February 10, 2026
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=T._M._v._University_of_Maryland_Medical_System_Corp.&oldid=11059162"