ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

After a Shawnee County judge sided with RMS Management Solutions and entered a judgment evicting Gabriel and Bonnie Robles from their home, the Robles brought suit in federal court. In their complaint, the Robles alleged that the judge refused to hear their counterclaims or certify their appeal because he was conspiring with RMS. Citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the district court dismissed their claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

*719 The Robles appeal this result but we see no way in which we might reverse. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “precludes federal district courts from effectively exercising appellate jurisdiction over ... claims inextricably intertwined with a prior state-court judgment.” Mo’s Express, LLC v. Sopkin, 441 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). The Robles don’t dispute that, but for the judgment in state court, they would have no federal case or that they effectively want a federal district court to review and revise a state court judgment.

Instead, the Robles claim that the district court erred because it placed the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “before and above the Constitution” because Article III, Section 2 indicates that the federal judicial power extends to cases presenting a federal question and theirs does. But while the Constitution extends federal judicial power to cases presenting federal questions, that doesn’t mean every federal question case must be presented in federal court or that every federal district court is authorized to entertain appeals from state court decisions touching on federal questions. The fact is that, at least generally speaking, the Supreme Court is the only federal court currently authorized to hear appeals from final state court judgments deciding federal questions. See Mo’s Express, 441 F.3d at 1233-34; 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). No exception to that rule exists here.

The district court’s dismissal of the Robles’ claims is affirmed.