{"podcast":{"title":"Swear on the Stand","slug":"swear-on-the-stand-7111404","podcast_index_feed_id":7111404,"rss_url":"https://anchor.fm/s/fddb5314/podcast/rss","website_url":"https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/danielswear","image_url":"https://d3t3ozftmdmh3i.cloudfront.net/staging/podcast_uploaded_nologo/42490093/42490093-1732466737482-64af1021e8b8d.jpg","author":"Daniel W. Swear","episode_count":193,"summary":"Court decisions are complex and difficult to digest. This podcast is designed to educating listeners on current legal decisions in a fun and interesting way. Researched by me and produced with the assistance of AI.","last_synced_at":"2026-07-10T22:18:10.447360+00:00","page_url":"https://stenobird.com/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404"},"episode":{"title":"Jurisdictional Limits of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine","slug":"jurisdictional-limits-of-the-rooker-feldman-doctrine","published_at":"2026-07-10T12:00:00+00:00","page_url":"https://stenobird.com/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/jurisdictional-limits-of-the-rooker-feldman-doctrine","show_page_url":"https://stenobird.com/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404","url":"https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/danielswear/episodes/Jurisdictional-Limits-of-the-Rooker-Feldman-Doctrine-e3l6se6","audio_url":"https://anchor.fm/s/fddb5314/podcast/play/121909126/https%3A%2F%2Fd3ctxlq1ktw2nl.cloudfront.net%2Fstaging%2F2026-5-23%2F5bfe48fd-a7ec-c2f0-acb2-fb83c4938656.m4a","summary":"This Supreme Court decision details the legal standards of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine , which prevents federal district courts from acting as appellate bodies for state-court decisions. The case involves T.M. , a petitioner who sought to void a state-sanctioned medical consent order in federal court while her state appeal was still pending. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor , the Court held that the doctrine applies even if the state litigation has not reached a final judgment from the state’s highest court. The ruling clarifies that federal district courts lack jurisdiction over cases where "state-court losers" invite federal judges to review and reject state-level mandates. Justice Thomas concurred to defend the historical necessity of the doctrine, while Justice Barrett dissented, arguing that the majority improperly expanded a narrow rule that should only apply once state proceedings have concluded. Together, these sources outline a significant jurisdictional boundary designed to maintain comity and federalism between the two court systems.","meta_description":"This Supreme Court decision details the legal standards of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine , which prevents federal district courts from acting as appellate b…","key_points":[],"chapters":[],"topics":[],"duration_seconds":3204,"processing_state":"not_requested","actions":[{"name":"request_transcript","method":"POST","url":"https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/episodes/jurisdictional-limits-of-the-rooker-feldman-doctrine/transcription-requests","description":"Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode."},{"name":"read_markdown","method":"GET","url":"https://stenobird.com/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/jurisdictional-limits-of-the-rooker-feldman-doctrine.md","description":"Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource."}]}}