reviewed is a "judicial" decision, or one that is merely administrative. Result The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Brennan, held that the District Court had properly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the highest court in a state. The denial of a waiver for admission to the bar, an evaluation of specific facts in light of an existing rule of law, was a judicial determination, only appealable to the Supreme Court. The Court noted, however, that a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the law would not be considered a review of anything that had been decided by the D.C. Court of Appeals, and remanded this question to the lower court. Dissent Justice Stevens dissented, noting that each plaintiff had asked the Court of Appeals to exercise administrative'' discretion by waiving the requirements, but neither plaintiff had actually sought review of the rule of law itself. Although Feldman had suggested that the rule was in violation of the law, he had not asked for the Court of Appeals to rule that it was, but had merely indicated a challenge that he might bring in the federal district court. See also Admission to the bar in the United States List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 460 References External links United States Constitution Article Three case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court Rooker–Feldman doctrine case law 1983 in United States case law Legal history of the District of Columbia United States antitrust case law American Bar Association Professional certification in law