Thomas, J., dissenting
majority’s Rooker–Feldman holding. The majority accepts Reed’s representation that he “does ‘not challenge the adverse’ state-court decisions themselves,” but only “ ‘targets as unconstitutional the Texas statute [Chapter 64] they authoritatively construed.’ ” Ante, at 4 (quoting Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U. S. 521, 532 (2011)). But this workaround to Rooker–Feldman raises a glaring Article III problem: As this Court has repeatedly explained, a federal court may not entertain a free-floating challenge to a statute unmoored from a concrete case or controversy. See, e.g., California v. Texas, 593 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2021) (slip op., at 7–9); Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 471–472 (1982); Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 488 (1923); Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346, 360–362 (1911). Unless Reed merely seeks an advisory opinion, his due process challenge to Chapter 64 must seek relief from some concrete enforcement or application of that law that affects him. More specifically, Reed must be challenging either (1) some conduct of the district attorney constituting enforcement of Chapter 64 against him or (2) the CCA’s application of Chapter 64 as a rule of decision in his case.[1] If it is the
- ↑ I acknowledge that our most recent DNA-testing precedent, Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U. S. 521 (2011), contains loose language suggesting that Skinner’s due process claim challenged neither “the [defendant] prosecutor’s conduct [n]or the decisions reached by the CCA” in his case, but only “Texas’ postconviction DNA statute ‘as construed’ by the Texas courts.” Id., at 530. But, the majority surely cannot think that federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over challenges to statutes in the abstract, nor does Skinner actually stand for that proposition. Skinner’s only jurisdictional holding was that the petitioner’s claim was not barred by Rooker–Feldman. See 562 U. S., at 532–533. Skinner did not address Article III standing and thus has “ ‘no precedential effect’ ” on that issue. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 511 (2006). Yet, for the curious, Skinner’s complaint did in fact allege that the defendant prosecutor was violating his due process rights through her conduct, and it expressly requested injunctive relief against her. See App. in Skinner v. Switzer, O. T. 2010, No. 09–9000, pp. 5–6, ¶¶1–2; 20–21, ¶33; 22, ¶37. Thus,
