Thomas, J., dissenting
all, determining whether state-court judgments applied unconstitutional constructions of state law is a classic use of this Court’s appellate jurisdiction under §1257(a). See, e.g., Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U. S. 451, 453 (2001); Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347, 349 (1964); Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Sav. Co. v. Hill, 281 U. S. 673, 678 (1930). That is why Reed originally petitioned this Court for certiorari to review the CCA’s judgment. And it is why he agreed at oral argument that we could have granted that petition. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 32–33.
Yet, even after repackaging his failed certiorari petition as an original §1983 complaint, Reed not only concedes but affirmatively argues that his claim is analogous to the due process arguments presented in Rogers, Bouie, and Brinkerhoff-Faris. See Brief for Petitioner 33–34. That he is correct on that front should be fatal to his complaint. Like the petitioners in those cases, Reed contends that the rules of decision applied against him in a state-court proceeding violated his due process rights. Because those contentions would have been appropriate subjects for this Court’s appellate review, it follows that Reed cannot press the same due process challenges and seek the same relief in an original action in the District Court. See Feldman, 460 U. S., at 482–486, and n. 15; accord, id., at, 489 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
In holding otherwise, the majority improperly separates the Rooker–Feldman and Article III inquiries and applies a different theory of Reed’s claim to each. But, Reed’s claim must satisfy two conditions at once: It must implicate an Article III case or controversy between the parties to this action, and that case or controversy must fall within the District Court’s “strictly original” jurisdiction. Rooker, 263 U. S., at 416. The majority articulates no theory of how Reed’s claim can satisfy both conditions. That is because there is no such theory.
A useful way to view this is to work backwards from the
