Posted on 06/20/2026 4:13:43 AM PDT by DFG
Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh joined with liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson in a 5-4 decision upholding the jurisdiction of state courts when plaintiffs also seek review by the federal court system.
Chief Justice John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Elena Kagan dissented in the ruling in T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp.
“The case was brought by a person identified only as T.M., who said she has a medical condition that can cause psychosis when she ingests gluten. In March 2023, she accidentally did so and was taken to the emergency room at Baltimore Washington Medical Center, according to court filings,” Newsweek reported.
She was then allegedly held at the hospital involuntarily for three months and forcibly injected with antipsychotic medication. Her parents filed lawsuits in state and federal courts against the hospital, seeking her release and to end the medication.
The parties reached a settlement agreement allowing T.M.’s release, but the state judge presiding over the habeas corpus case (wrongful detainment) set several conditions, including that the plaintiff agree to dismiss with prejudice all the pending cases against the University of Maryland Medical System Corp.
“However, 10 days later, she and her parents obtained new counsel and sued them in federal district court, seeking a declaration that the [state judge’s] order violated her due process rights [under the U.S. Constitution]. At the same time, she appealed the consent order to the Appellate Court of Maryland,” Newsweek said.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournal.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Sotomayor (wrote the opinion) Thomas Alito Kavanaugh Jackson
Minority:
Barrett Roberts Kagan Gorsuch
https://x.com/DeseretStone/status/2067644671032176870
The facts seem pretty egregious in this case but the law seems fairly clear: the family will have to wait to sue.
I trust Alito and Thomas. They decide according what they believe is right, not necessarily correct politically
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction set by Congress, and even that is subject abstention if a matter is pending in a state court. The metes and bounds of that jurisdiction can be quite confusing, so cases get filed in federal court that may not get heard, but aggressive lawyers will take that chance.
By agreeing to let the lower court route become exhausted first the Supremes are giving up power. Good decision, good work.
Not giving up power as the minority wanted reminds me of the bad bosses I had who micromanaged every detail. In so doing they created bad situations that might not have occurred if we were allowed to follow the processes.
Same here!
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction set by Congress, and even that is subject abstention if a matter is pending in a state court.”
In that observation, doesn’t the power of Presidential pardons and it limits, fly in the face of modern “doesn’t apply to State law cases? Does the Constitution really mean to limit the power of the President to pardon? At that time of writing in our Country, weren’t nearly all crimes adjudicated at the State level? Did the Founders really intend for such modern limitations upon the President’s ability to pardon?
Finally, has it every been explored in court whether the Presidential pardon applies to all convictions, State and Federal?
Me too. I have complete trust they'll get it right every time.
Of the three lovely ladies, Only Sotomayer had one case that was not a 9-0 decision, this one. And Kagan has a 8-1 psot this week.
They have only allowed Jackson to write the 9-0 decisions.
I psoted this before:
What surprised me was in not what I was looking for. The large number of case where the court was in or near unanimity.
27 Unanimous Decisions
10 8-1 Decisions (one 8-0 as Alito recused on a case)
3 7-2 Decisions
6 6-3 Decisions
3 5-4 Decisions
I would not expected this Court to be in such agreement.
Gluten ... pfffft!
My recollection is that the unanimous decisions are always numerous and less publicized.
It is my theory that the Colorado Governor commuted Tiny Peters because he didn't want to have a Presidential pardon case to make it to the Supreme Court.
That limitation is why the commie trash in DC set up the hate crime laws — it permits a 2nd trial in Fed courts for the same crime even when a state court has ruled no guilt.
That BS has to end. There is no such thing as a hate crime.
They’ve decided only 49 cases this term?
Christian ef Justice Roberts likes it that way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.