28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over an APA claim alleging that an agency failed to perform duties under federal regulations.

Vaz v. Neal · filed 2022-05-09

Subject matter jurisdiction over an APA claim rests on the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Vaz’s APA claim therefore arises under the laws of the United States, and the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction for APA review of agency action without requiring a prior finding that the action was arbitrary or capricious.

Cifuentes v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security · filed 2022-09-16

Moreover, the Court notes that section 706(2) of the APA and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confer the Court with subject matter jurisdiction to set aside agency actions found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” ... Defendants have failed to direct this Court to any case stating that the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction until it has already determined that the agency’s action is arbitrary or capricious, and this Court has found none.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a complaint alleging constitutional violations under § 1983.

Green v. Sterling · filed 2022-12-05

On September 26, 2022, Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to remand because the complaint alleges constitutional violations under § 1983, giving this Court jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this Court has jurisdiction in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim arising under the APA, a federal statute.

Borzouei v. Bitter · filed 2022-12-14

However, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers federal subject matter jurisdiction to “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Plaintiff’s first cause of action is pursuant to the APA, a federal statute. ... Therefore, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent holding in Vaz, the Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s APA claim.

Section 1331 supplies federal question jurisdiction to hear APA claims, but the court found that jurisdiction absent once no federal question claims remained.

Keener v. Guzman · filed 2023-03-13

28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides a jurisdictional basis—federal question jurisdiction—to hear APA claims and provides a general grant of subject matter jurisdiction to federal district courts in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... The court finds that upon its dismissal of plaintiffs’ Title VI claims and Fourteenth Amendment claims for relief for failure to state a claim, it now lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining APA claims seeking injunctive relief because no federal question claims remain.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over federal-law claims but does not supply original jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Partridge v. Minnesota Board of Social Work · filed 2023-08-15

Although 28 U.S.C. § 1331 establishes federal court jurisdiction over federal-law claims, that provision does not supply original jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over federal prisoners’ constitutional claims for injunctive relief.

SALAMON v. KNIGHT · filed 2023-12-15

Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over Plaintiff’s constitutional claims for injunctive relief, limited by § 3626(a).

Section 1331 provides subject matter jurisdiction to review agency action under the APA, subject to statutory preclusion of review.

Butler v. Haaland · filed 2023-12-15

The Court thus finds that it has jurisdiction, under § 1331, to consider Butler’s APA claim.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Jenkins v. Minnesota School of Bartending · filed 2024-04-01

But even if they were not conclusory, § 1331 does not supply the federal court with a basis for original jurisdiction over state law claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over a suit brought under a federal statute such as Title VII.

Buchanan v. Doris Duke Foundation - Shangri-La Museum of Islamic Art · filed 2024-10-02

To be clear, although there may be a First Amendment right to access the courts, see Borough of Duryea, Pennsylvania v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379, 387 (2011), the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction in this case derives from the fact that Buchanan brings suit under Title VII—a federal statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Dkt. No. 8 at 5.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims based on the APA and Mandamus Act.

Rashed v. Blinken · filed 2024-11-27

Absent that barrier, the APA and Mandamus Acts, on which plaintiffs’ claims are based, clearly confer federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over APA challenges arising under federal law unless another federal statute precludes review.

Dunne v. Ricolcol · filed 2024-12-12

Unless another federal statute precludes review, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers jurisdiction over APA challenges because they arise under federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an APA claim when no other statute precludes jurisdiction, even if the claim fails on the merits.

de Kewayfati v. Garland · filed 2025-01-30

Following Dhakal, the court finds that Ms. Sayegh de Kewayfati’s claims should be dismissed on the merits under Rule 12(b)(6), rather than Rule 12(b)(1). Dhakal, 895 F.3d at 538 (“Although the APA is not an independent grant of jurisdiction, where federal jurisdiction is not precluded by another statute, general federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”) (internal citations omitted).

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over § 1983 claims alleging constitutional violations.

Rouser v. Novi, City of · filed 2025-02-12

Because Plaintiffs bring suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and allege that Defendants violated their constitutional rights, this district court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and removal was proper.

Section 1331 does not provide original federal-question jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims solely because they accompanied federal claims.

Tripp v. Charlie Falk's Auto Wholesale Inc. · filed 2008-08-29

These remaining claims could not provide a basis for original jurisdiction under federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over APA claims; the requirements for APA relief go to the merits.

Momeni v. Blinken · filed 2024-12-13

Defendants’ arguments for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) are misplaced. “The Ninth Circuit has ... held that federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over APA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over Section 1983 claims alleging violations of federal statutory rights by local officials when the underlying statute preserves other remedies.

Consortium of Community Based Organizations v. Donovan · filed 1982-01-11

This court concludes then, that plaintiffs’ statutory claims against the local defendants state a cause of action pursuant to Section 1983 which this court may hear pursuant to its federal question jurisdiction as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction to review agency action under the APA when the claim is independent of a government contract.

Megapulse, Inc. v. Lewis · filed 1982-01-29(a)

Even though the APA itself technically grants no jurisdiction, power to review any agency action under the APA exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a substantial federal constitutional claim challenging how an agency acted, even when another statute provides an exclusive remedy for challenging the agency’s appointment of a receiver.

Unity Savings Ass'n v. Federal Savings & Loan Insurance · filed 1983-05-31

Since this court has jurisdiction over questions of federal law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976), the court concludes that it would be improper to dismiss Count IV against FSLIC and FHLB for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims under 49 U.S.C. § 10927 involving the I.C.C. cargo insurance endorsement, even when individual claims are under $10,000.

Ford Motor Co. v. Transport Indemnity Co. (In Re Automobile Transport, Inc.) · filed 1984-06-28

Because 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a) imposes no jurisdictional minimum amounts on claims brought under § 10927 of the Interstate Commerce Act, the court concludes that claims brought under the I.C.C. endorsement, as opposed to those brought under the terms of a bill of lading, need not amount to $10,000 each in order to create jurisdiction in this court. The Court concludes that federal question jurisdiction is present in this case under the general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to hear a Bivens claim alleging that a federal officer violated constitutional rights, if the plaintiff can state such a claim.

Hicks v. Small · filed 1993-12-01

It appears to this court that we have jurisdiction under § 1331 to hear a claim for deprivation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights if such a claim can be stated.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a constitutional claim, even if the claim ultimately fails on the merits.

Gleave v. Graham · filed 1997-01-22

As 28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants original jurisdiction to district courts for “all civil actions arising under the Constitution ..: of the United States” and as Gleave’s Complaint explicitly asserts the Fifth Amendment due process clause as a basis for relief, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction must be denied.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to review claims that federal officials acted beyond their statutory authority.

Truckers United for Safety v. Mead · filed 2000-03-01

Therefore, this Court finds that it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and sovereign immunity does not bar its review, see Larson, 337 U.S. at 690-91, 69 S.Ct. 1457, to determine whether the Inspector General is acting outside the authority granted to him to conduct investigations.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a due process challenge to Medicare successor liability that is separate from a challenge to the administrative proceedings imposing a particular penalty.

BP Care, Inc. v. Thompson · filed 2003-09-26

Taking all of Plaintiffs claims as true and construing Plaintiffs claim as a challenge merely to the constitutionality of imposing successor liability on a party completely isolated from administrative review, the - Court may consider the claim as arising under the Due Process Clause within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over an APA challenge when the plaintiff identifies a federal law that provides a standard for reviewing the agency action.

Muset v. Ishimaru · filed 2011-04-30

In his amended complaint, Muset failed to allege that the EEOC or Chief Judge Flynn violated any specific federal statute or regulation in issuing a sanction against him, which is essential to an invocation of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331. ... Though he does not carry the day, at least as to the fust pitched battle, plaintiff succeeds on defendants’ 12(b)(1) motion.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over APA claims alleging unlawful federal agency action unless Congress clearly withdraws that authority.

Coal River Mountain Watch v. United States Department of the Interior · filed 2015-11-25

In the midst of this melee, both parties overlook the simple fact that this Court derives its authority to proceed with respect to the instant action from section 1331 of Title 28 — not SMCRA’s judicial-review provision — and thus, determining the “exclusivity” of this Court’s jurisdiction under the terms of section 1276(a) of the SMCRA appears to be beside the point for present purposes.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution, even when the availability of a remedy is disputed.

Koprowski v. Baker · filed 2016-05-11

We have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims that arise under the Constitution, including Koprowski’s Eighth Amendment claim.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over federal pre-emption claims even when the federal statute provides no private cause of action.

City of Austin v. Abbott · filed 2019-03-25

Indeed, in a case similar to this one, the Supreme Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provided federal question jurisdiction over the federal pre-emption claim even though the FTA did not give the plaintiff a private cause of action. ... As a result, the Court here has jurisdiction over the City's pre-emption claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an APA claim because the APA creates a federal cause of action, even when the alleged agency wrongdoing involves state law.

Fuller-Deets v. National Institutes of Health · filed 2020-01-14

Thus, because the APA is a federal law and it creates Plaintiff’s cause of action, this court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a claim that depends on construing or applying the Constitution.

Fulton v. Fulton County Board of Commissioners · filed 2025-07-31

And because his claim “depends . . . upon construction or application of the Con- stitution,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is the correct jurisdictional hook.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim with alternative theories of liability unless federal law is essential to each theory.

Osage Pipe Line Company LLC v. RSUI Indemnity Company · filed 2024-09-26

Because federal law therefore is not essential to each of Osage’s theories of liability for its breach of contract claim,3 federal-question jurisdiction does not lie for that claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when an alternative state-law theory supports relief without resolving a federal issue.

Drury v. University of Louisville · filed 2020-03-20

Likewise, here, Drury’s complaint states alternate theories supporting her negligence claims, at least one of which does not involve a federal question—the KCRA. ... Thus, Drury’s negligence-based claims remain state-law claims for which the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when construing federal law is unnecessary because the claim has independent alternative theories.

The People of the State of California v. National CPR Foundation LLC · filed 2025-02-06

Whether Defendants are liable for false advertising or unfair competition does not necessarily turn on the construction of federal OSHA regulations. These regulations relate to only one theory out of six. Thus, there is no federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim supported by alternative state and federal grounds when resolving a federal question is unnecessary to the claim.

Long v. Bando Mfg of Amer · filed 2000-01-13

We therefore hold that, although federal question jurisdiction may exist even where the plaintiff has not stated a federal cause of action, Long’s complaint did not invoke the federal courts’ “arising under” jurisdiction, because it put forth alternate state and federal policies to support his state-law wrongful discharge claim.

Federal-question jurisdiction over an FLSA claim does not depend on satisfying the FLSA enterprise-coverage requirement, which is an element of the claim.

Guereca v. Cordero · filed 2020-03-27

As such, the Court finds that the threshold requirement that an enterprise make an annual gross volume of sales or do business of at least $500,000 is an element of Plaintiff’s cause of action, not a jurisdictional prerequisite. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous Section 1983 claim without first deciding its merits or meeting an amount in controversy requirement.

Malak v. Associated Physicians, Inc. · filed 1986-02-24

Congress, however, amended 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in 1980 so that it no longer contains this amount in controversy requirement, and thus a Section 1983 litigant such as plaintiff who meets the Bell standard articulated above can assert federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 without a prior determination that his claim is meritorious, regardless of the amount in controversy.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the complaint anticipates a federal bankruptcy defense.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London Syndicate 1861, Subscribing to Policy No. ANV122398A v. Daileader · filed 2023-01-13

The Court concludes that the bankruptcy proceedings are merely factual predicates for Plaintiffs’ state law claims, and that the Amended Complaint’s reference to a possible federal defense — that the Bankruptcy/Insolvency Exclusion is void under the Bankruptcy Code as an ipso facto provision ~— does not provide a basis for the exercise of federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to review another district court’s decisions.

Portnov v. United States of America · filed 2021-05-25

Furthermore, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of another district court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction to challenge mere error in a state court judgment when that court had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter.

CHANCE v. COUNTY BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF McHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS · filed 1964-06-10

Mere error in a judgment entered by a state court having jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter is not sufficient to raise a federal question under the Constitution.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a noncustodial plaintiff’s collateral attack on a court-martial alleging a jurisdictional or comparably fundamental defect.

Wallace v. United States of America · filed 2026-05-07

Courts in this District have consistently found “subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear a non-custodial plaintiff’s collateral attack on a court martial when [the plaintiff] alleges that the court martial had no jurisdiction or there was some other equally fundamental defect in the proceedings.” ... It is thus “clear” that the Court has “jurisdiction to consider” his attack on the validity of his court-martial.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law action that recognizes a prior federal judgment and seeks no relief from it.

City of Visalia v. Mission Linen Supply · filed 2020-05-20

The Complaint does not question any finding or declaration made in the February 5 Order, the Complaint does not indicate that fraud or any other Rule 60 basis for relief applies, and the Complaint expressly states that it recognizes the February 5 Order and seeks no relief from it. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Complaint is not a “collateral attack” on the February 5 Order, as envisioned by Eyak, Baccus, Villareal, and Deauville.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction for a person in custody to renew a collateral attack on a court-martial conviction after habeas relief was denied.

Bond v. Kendall · filed 2023-08-22

Plaintiff fails to allege an express waiver of sovereign immunity and the limited waiver in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not apply in the instant circumstance.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims alleging federal constitutional violations even when the claims collaterally attack a state-court consent judgment.

Republic Building Co., Inc. v. Charter Twp. of Clinton, Mich. · filed 2023-09-07

Federal district courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The district court, therefore, did have subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ alleged constitutional-rights violations. ... The district court’s conclusion that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this case because the complaint constitutes an improper collateral attack on the state-court consent judgment was therefore an erroneous application of that doctrine.

Section 1331 places federal-question jurisdiction in the United States district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims.

Sweezer v. United States · filed 2016-05-11

Finally, the Court is also without jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs claims based upon the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal question statute and the Civil Rights Act, because jurisdiction to consider these claims does not reside with this Court. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 701, et seq.; 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In this regard, it is well settled that claims brought pursuant to these federal statutes may only be brought in a United States district court.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction on United States district courts, not on the Court of Federal Claims.

Brown v. United States · filed 2017-04-26

Further, the statutes Mr. Brown identifies as bases for the Court’s jurisdictionm 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 1367(a); 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (i.e., RICO); and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701~06- either provide for exclusive jurisdiction in the United States District Courts or do not mandate the payment of money, §§ Julian v. United States, 658 F. App’X 1014, 1016-17 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that RICO is not a money-mandating statute); Wopsock v. Natchees, 454 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he A[dministrative] P[rocedure] A[ct] does not authorize an award of money damages at all . . . .”); Hicl<man v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 645, 651 (2015) (finding no jurisdiction in this Court to entertain claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 because such claims may only be heard in the United States District Courts); Sharpe v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 468, 476 (2013) (°‘{.l]urisdiction to hear [a] claim [under 28 U.S.C. § 1343] belongs exclusively to the district courts.” (internal citations omitted)); Hall v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 51, 56 (2005) (“The United States Court of Federal Claims . . . is not a United States District Court and, therefore, does not have jurisdiction over claims arising under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”)', Marlin v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 475, 476 (2005) (Court of Federal Claims “does not have jurisdiction to consider civil rights claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 , 1983, or 1985 because jurisdiction over claims arising under the Civil Rights Act resides exclusively in the district courts.”); see also 28 U.S.C. § l367(a) (providing for supplemental jurisdiction only in the United States District Courts).

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction to United States district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims.

Phillips v. United States · filed 2017-11-13

As the government con-ectly notes in its reply brief, plaintiff may not rely upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) or 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction) to establish jurisdiction in this matter, because those statutes apply only to the United States disttict courts.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction only to federal district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims.

Lizzmore v. United States · filed 2019-01-08

Other statutory grants of jurisdiction to this court are inapplicable, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants federal question jurisdiction only to federal district courts, not this court.

Section 1331 governs federal-question jurisdiction in district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims.

Allen v. United States · filed 2020-07-21

As noted above, plaintiff also cites the federal question and diversity jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331–32. See Compl. at 3. But these concern the jurisdiction of district courts, not our court.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction on United States district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims, and does not mandate money damages.

Emiabata v. United States · filed 2020-12-18

Both 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 confer jurisdiction on the United States District Courts, but not on this court, and neither statute is a money-mandating source of law.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction to district courts, but does not give the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction.

Young v. United States · filed 2021-03-19

Mr. Young argues this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331–33, 1343(a)(3), and 1367. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5–7. The Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction under any of these statutes, as Congress has granted the district courts exclusive jurisdiction over each of them.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction to United States district courts, but does not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims.

Wiley v. United States · filed 2021-07-30

Because this Court is not a district court of the United States, the authorities Plaintiff relies upon to establish jurisdiction all fail. ... First, Plaintiff asserts that the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which states that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” (emphasis added).

Section 1331 does not give the Court of Federal Claims general federal-question jurisdiction.

Chisum v. United States · filed 2021-11-05

The Court “does not have authority to exercise general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” ... The Court, however, does not have authority to exercise federal question jurisdiction over her claims, to the extent she raises a federal question.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction to United States district courts, but not to the Court of Federal Claims.

Alvarez v. United States · filed 2021-12-30

The Court likewise lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which defines federal question jurisdiction of the United States district courts.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction to district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims.

Adair v. United States · filed 2021-12-30

The Court likewise lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See ECF No. 10 at 17; 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (defining federal question jurisdiction of district courts).

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over federal-question cases but does not give the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction.

Kaetz v. United States · filed 2022-03-08

The caption of his complaint also includes citations to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which ... confer jurisdiction only on federal district courts. ... The Court of Federal Claims is not a district court. ... Accordingly, it lacks jurisdiction to entertain claims under these statutes.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts general federal-question jurisdiction but does not give that jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims.

Kornafel v. United States · filed 2022-03-18

Mr. Kornafel also asserts that this Court’s jurisdiction arises as a result of “[f]ederal questions,” but the Court of Federal Claims lacks the authority to exercise federal question ... jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See Crocker v. United States, 125 F.3d 1475, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (observing that the Court of Federal Claims “lacks the general federal question jurisdiction of the district courts”).

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction on the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Sullivan v. United States · filed 2022-04-21

The federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, does not apply to the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Section 1331 establishes federal-question jurisdiction but does not give the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over claims involving non-money-mandating constitutional provisions, judicial misconduct, or torts.

Hastings v. United States · filed 2023-03-08

Upon review, none of these statutes confer such jurisdiction. ... 28 U.S.C. § 1331 establishes federal question jurisdiction. ... None of these statutes speaks to the ability of this Court to hear claims relating to non-money-mandating constitutional provisions, judicial misconduct, or tort claims.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts, but not the Court of Federal Claims, original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law.

Stephens v. United States · filed 2023-03-29

First, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides the districts courts — not this Court — with “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction to district courts, but does not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims.

Barksdale v. United States · filed 2024-11-20

Section 1331 is a general grant of jurisdiction to the district courts. ... As such, none of these provisions confer jurisdiction on this Court.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction to district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims.

Pavich v. United States · filed 2025-04-24

Although it is true that “the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 “does not apply to our court, however, and so does not provide the necessary jurisdiction to proceed.” Embrey v. United States, No. 19-CV-740, 2020 WL 7312184, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 11, 2020) (citing Ali, 2019 WL 3412313, at *4; Ledford, 297 F.3d at 1382). In short, like diversity jurisdiction, federal question jurisdiction is similarly inapplicable here.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is limited by the Tucker Act for monetary claims against the United States exceeding $10,000.

Alimenta (USA), Inc. v. Block · filed 1986-06-16

The Tucker Act, in general, provides a limitation on Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a claim seeking review of alleged federal agency misconduct rather than contract damages, when sovereign immunity is waived under 5 U.S.C. § 702.

Thibodeau v. Pierce · filed 1988-03-30

Thus, the present case appears to be most properly characterized as a suit seeking to rectify official misconduct and not a suit founded on a contract for money damages against the United States. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) with a waiver of sovereign immunity under 5 U.S. C. § 702. The Tucker Act is not applicable.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over federal-law claims outside the Claims Court’s exclusive jurisdiction.

A.E. Finley & Associates, Inc. v. United States · filed 1990-03-23

In sum, we conclude that Finley’s claim is neither a claim against the United States for more than $10,000 nor one “founded upon [a] contract” with the United States. It is therefore not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Claims Court, and because it is not the district court had original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction to district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims.

Adegbite v. United States · filed 2021-10-29

The Government is correct that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 3 grants jurisdiction to District Courts rather than this Court.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over an APA claim of unreasonable agency delay when judicial review is otherwise available.

LEMUS v. MCALEENAN · filed 2021-06-03

Thus, although the APA does not provide an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction, federal courts may entertain challenges to unreasonably delayed agency action on the basis of § 1331.

Section 1331 does not categorically exclude claims by aliens held in military custody outside the United States.

Rasul v. Bush · filed 2004-06-28

But in any event, nothing in Eisentrager or in any of our other cases categorically excludes aliens detained in military custody outside the United States from the “ ‘privilege of litigation’ ” in U. S. courts.

Section 1331 grants district courts original jurisdiction over federal questions, but a federal question alone does not support removal when the claims could not originally have been brought in federal court.

Almendarez v. City of Coppell · filed 2024-03-06

Although the City’s notice of removal invoked this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Congress only vested district court’s with “original jurisdiction” over cases arising under federal law. Thus, that the state court petition raised a federal question, by itself, is insufficient sustain the exercise of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot be created by a crossclaim.

Spain v. Bice · filed 2024-06-24

Because the court finds that a crossclaim does not create federal question jurisdiction, this case is due to be remanded back to state court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims merely because the defendant is a national bank; the claims must arise under federal law.

Pauletta v. Diehl · filed 2024-07-17

But the bank’s mere status as a national bank does not confer federal jurisdiction over claims against it; the proper inquiry is whether plaintiff’s claims arise under federal law, which they do not.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an alleged FLSA violation even when the existence of an employment relationship remains to be decided on the merits.

Gromina v. Forexonia, LLC · filed 2024-10-21

Because the existence of an “employment” relationship under the FLSA is not a jurisdictional question, Gromina’s allegations that she suffered violations of the FLSA at the hands of Kazmarck, who oversaw personnel at Forexonia and Kazmarck Capital ... are adequate to raise a federal question claim for jurisdictional purposes.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a removed state criminal case based on a claim that the state judge coerced a guilty plea.

Coleman · filed 2026-01-06

Coleman says this Court has jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1443(1), and 1446(d). ... The [13] Report recommends remanding Coleman’s case to state court because neither Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, nor any of the federal statutes Coleman cites support this Court’s jurisdiction over Coleman’s case. ... Finding the [13] Report neither clearly erroneous, an abuse of discretion, nor contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the [13] Report as its opinion and REMANDS this action to the Leake County Justice Court.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, but does not permit removal of state criminal prosecutions.

Gilroy v. Waltjen · filed 2025-01-14

In support of his notice of removal, Gilroy also cites 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (governing the removal of civil actions to federal court); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (providing federal court jurisdiction ... over civil actions arising under the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”); and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (governing supplemental jurisdiction). See ECF No. 1 at PageID.3–5. None of these provisions permits the removal of criminal cases from state court to federal court.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction over civil actions but does not provide a basis to remove a state criminal case.

FOLKS v. BRODER · filed 2025-09-22

In the motions, Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but that statute provides that federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” That statute has no bearing on Plaintiff’s motion to remove the criminal case against him to this Court.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over state criminal prosecutions or a basis for removing them to federal court.

Walker · filed 2025-10-31

Section 1331 “does not grant jurisdiction over criminal cases, and a defendant in a criminal prosecution may not rely on § 1331 as a basis for removal.”

Section 1331 does not provide a basis to remove a state criminal prosecution to federal court.

ROZIER · filed 2025-11-17

But § 1331 applies only to the removal of civil actions and is inapplicable here.

Section 1331 provides original jurisdiction over federal civil actions but does not authorize removal of state criminal prosecutions.

Holder v. City of Florissant · filed 2021-01-22

Section 28 U.S.C. § 1331 cannot be the basis for removal of a case from state court, as this statute can only be used to initiate original civil actions in federal court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an attorneys’ fee dispute arising under state contract law.

Faulk v. Tilden Fundamental Cypress Lakes Apartments, LLC · filed 2025-02-07

The Court lacks federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the attorneys’ fee dispute does not arise under federal law. Attorneys’ fee disputes are quintessential state contract law disputes.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over Medicare reimbursement disputes barred by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), including due process claims that are not collateral to the reimbursement dispute.

Kechijian v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Etc. · filed 1980-03-12

Plaintiff’s challenge to a denial of his claims for reimbursements under the Act and regulations falls precisely within the bar of section 405(h) to federal question jurisdiction, and his due process claim is not collateral to that challenge.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a pleaded EFTA claim without requiring a minimum amount in controversy or diversity of citizenship.

Leggio v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2025-04-01

Instead, Chase relied upon Section 1331, the federal question jurisdiction statute, which does not require the removing party to satisfy the dual requirements of the diversity jurisdiction statute, i.e., establishing the statutory amount in controversy and diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 does not provide original federal jurisdiction over municipal ordinance violation cases that do not raise the ordinance’s constitutionality.

Eddy · filed 2025-12-11

Because the municipal violation cases, City of Arnold v. Eddy, Nos. 230711701 and 230711702 (23rd Jud. Cir., Jefferson County Court), relate to whether Plaintiff violated City of Arnold Ordinance 6.17 and not to the statute’s constitutionality, they could not have originally been brought in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; see also Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 800 (1966).

Section 1331 requires a court to exercise federal-question jurisdiction when federal law applies; inconvenience alone does not permit dismissal in favor of a foreign forum.

Pavlou v. Ocean Traders Marine Corporation · filed 1962-03-27

The force of this opinion appears to be that given a case where the Jones Act or other laws of the United States apply, this court has no power to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens, no matter how inconvenient the forum may be to the parties or witnesses.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a TILA claim, which they must retain if it was properly removed.

Kambic v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2020-07-14

However, having done the opposite and chosen to amend his complaint to add a federal claim, the Court must retain jurisdiction over the TILA claim, provided it was properly removed, an issue discussed below.

Section 1331(a) permits federal courts to hear constitutional challenges to military commanders’ decisions affecting civilians on military bases, including patently arbitrary or discriminatory exclusions.

Committee to Free the Fort Dix 38 v. Collins · filed 1970-07-13(a)

We must, therefore, consider whether other authority has circumscribed our power under § 1331 (a) to review decisions of military commanders respecting bases under their command vis a vis civilians. ... However broad a commander's discretion is, "patently arbitrary or discriminatory" decisions may be properly adjudicated.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to consider a successive § 2255 motion filed without court of appeals certification, even though the motion presents a federal question.

ROSADO · filed 2026-03-05

Petitioner identifies as alternative bases 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4), 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and two portions of Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. ... This Court’s jurisdiction to consider successive motions to vacate sentence is thus explicitly cabined by the certification process – where no certification is obtained from the appropriate court of appeals, this Court cannot consider a successive motion to vacate sentence, regardless of whether it presents a federal question, as all motions to vacate must.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over claims arising from an HHS exclusion decision when § 405(h) channels judicial review through § 405(g).

SHAKER · filed 2026-03-26

Plaintiff’s claims, here, are all “inextricably intertwined” with his assertion that he is entitled to participate in federal health care programs—precluding § 1331 as basis for jurisdiction over them.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over claims challenging the constitutionality of a territorial tax.

PSMT, LLC v. Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands · filed 2026-03-30

Because PSMT attacks the constitutionality of the Container Tax, the Court may exercise federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over Counts II-VI of the FAC.

Private parties cannot divest a federal court of jurisdiction under § 1331 through a forum-selection agreement.

Knap · filed 2026-03-31

Here, Congress conferred subject matter jurisdiction to this Court over this action via federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. And private parties do not have the power to divest a court of subject matter jurisdiction through contractual agreement.

Section 1331 requires more than a federal source of title for jurisdiction over a property dispute, such as a challenge to the federal government’s original conveyance.

Barker v. Boettcher · filed 2026-04-02

Federal courts have long rejected the idea that property disputes “present[] a Federal question merely because one of the parties to it has derived his title under an act of Congress.” Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561, 570 (1912); see also Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d 176, 178–79 (7th Cir. 1985) (collecting cases). Something more, such as a challenge to the federal government’s original conveyance of the property, would be required for federal courts to exercise jurisdiction. See Hilgeford, 776 F.2d at 179.

Section 1331 can provide jurisdiction for a mandatory injunction compelling federal officials to perform statutory or regulatory duties.

Carpet, Linoleum And Resilient Tile Layers, Local Union No. 419 v. Brown · filed 1981-07-30

A mandatory injunction such as the one sought here is essentially in the nature of mandamus. Thus, jurisdiction for its issuance can be based on either § 1361 or § 1331, or both.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to issue a mandatory injunction compelling an agency to perform a statutory duty.

In Re the Estate of Michael Patrick Smith, and People of the State of Colorado, in Intervention-Appellants v. Margaret H · filed 1984-10-29

We also held in Carpet, Linoleum and Resilient Tile Layers that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 gives the district court jurisdiction to issue a mandatory injunction. ... Applying these principles, we find that jurisdiction exists and mandamus is an appropriate remedy.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is not defeated by joining a defendant against whom no claim could succeed in state court.

Commonwealth Edison Co. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · filed 1996-12-31

A plaintiff should not be allowed to defeat federal court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 by fraudulently joining the state, or any other type of defendant, against whom no claim for relief could succeed in state court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a foreign government has a special interest in a case’s outcome.

Patrickson v. Dole Food Company · filed 2001-05-30

We therefore decline to follow Marcos, Torres and Pacheco de Perez insofar as they stand for the proposition that the federal courts may assert jurisdiction over a case simply because a foreign government has expressed a special interest in its outcome.

Section 1331 provides no venue rule; a claim brought under it must satisfy a separate venue statute.

Great Western United Corp. v. Kidwell · filed 1977-09-02

Sections 1331, 1332 and 1337 of Title 28 do not contain venue provisions and causes of action based on these sections may only be brought in the Northern District of Texas if venue lies under one of the two venue provisions contained in § 1391(b).

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over an action founded on an agreement with a federal agency.

Basic Research, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission · filed 2011-05-23

When an action is founded on an agreement with a federal agency, it is “one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States within the jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on the federal district courts.”

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction when interpreting a federal statute is central to the dispute.

Rock Springs Grazing Ass'n v. Salazar · filed 2013-04-03

The Court agrees with the BLM as to RSGA’s claims grounded in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (declaratory judgment), 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus), and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706(APA). ... It seems without question that this case requires an interpretation of the Wild Horses Act, which is clearly basic and in the forefront of this dispute.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over statutory claims seeking judicial review or compelled adjudication of visa applications when consular nonreviewability applies.

Ullah v. Schrader · filed 2024-09-16

Moreover, none of the statutes cited by Plaintiffs allow the Court to review their claims. Plaintiffs assert that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to: (1) federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 702. See, Compl. ¶ 10; Pl. Opp’n at 10. However, these statutes do not provide a freestanding basis for jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits dismissal for lack of federal-question jurisdiction when a purported federal claim is wholly insubstantial or frivolous; that rule does not govern Article III standing.

Stewart v. Martin · filed 2025-07-07

This exception is sometimes called the “substantiality doctrine.” And it applies only to dismissals for lack of federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, not standing.