Peter Protopapas v. Whittaker Clark & Daniels, Inc., et al.

Petitioner, a state-appointed receiver, objected to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over Respondent’s Chapter 11 case: relying on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Petitioner argued that Respondent (the state-court loser) complains of injuries from a statecourt order appointing Petitioner as receiver and invokes federal bankruptcy jurisdiction to overturn the receivership order. The Third Circuit rejected Petitioner’s objection, relying on circuit precedent that limits the Rooker-Feldman doctrine only to state-court orders that are either final or effectively final. Subsequently, in T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., 608 U.S. —, 146 S. Ct. 1739 (June 18, 2026), this Court held that the RookerFeldman doctrine bars district courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by state-court losers complaining of state-court judgments, “regardless of whether those judgments are final trial-court judgments or those of a State’s highest court.” The question presented is whether the Court should grant, vacate, and remand for reconsideration in light of T.M.