28 U.S.C. § 1331

A purported constitutional claim against private actors does not present a substantial federal question under Section 1331, and federal preemption raised only as a defense cannot support removal.

Martin v. Wilkes-Barre Publishing Co. · filed 1983-07-01

Since there is no allegation or evidence of governmental action involved here, we conclude that the Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim falls within that narrow category of purported federal question cases to which previous unimpeachable decisions unanimously “foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that the questions sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy.” ... In sum, the Court finds that the first ground relied upon by the Defendants to remove this action does not raise a “substantial” federal question and, therefore, is an insufficient basis for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. ... Therefore, we conclude that the second ground asserted by the Defendants, the defense of federal preemption,, also cannot serve as a basis for removal of the Plaintiff’s Complaint to federal court.

Section 1331's substantial-federal-question requirement is satisfied by serious questions about the constitutionality of a regulation and the adequacy of process protecting alleged property and liberty interests.

May v. Gray · filed 1988-12-06

Plaintiff’s claim raises two serious questions. The first question goes to the constitutionality of a regulation which deprives the plaintiff of a hearing before separation because he has not served six years; the second asks whether the process that has been afforded, or may be afforded, is adequate to redress plaintiff’s alleged deprivation of property and liberty. The court concludes that these questions raise substantial federal issues which warrant the exercise of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is established by alleging a constitutional claim unless that claim is plainly immaterial or asserted solely to manufacture federal jurisdiction.

Pope v. City of Clearwater · filed 1991-07-12

Plaintiff correctly argues in response to Defendant’s claim that “where an action is brought under 28 U.S.C. 1331, jurisdiction is sufficiently established by allegation of a claim under the Constitution, unless it clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over a colorable federal constitutional challenge to a municipality’s refusal to place a proposed initiative on the ballot.

Wisconsin Term Limits v. League of Wisconsin Municipalities · filed 1994-11-18

The court thus has jurisdiction to consider whether the rejection by the Defendants of the Plaintiffs’ proposed direct legislation was a proper exercise under the statute or an unconstitutional limitation of the Plaintiffs’ speech and associational rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court accordingly adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation concerning federal jurisdiction over this controversy.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a plausible constitutional claim even when the claim ultimately fails on the merits.

Pascarella v. Swift Transportation Co. · filed 2009-07-14

In the present case, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment due process claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is neither so insubstantial and implausible, nor completely devoid of merit, as to not involve a federal controversy. Plaintiff has alleged that he and the proposed class were deprived of a well-established property interest without sufficient notice or the opportunity to be heard. Such allegations, laid out in detail and supported by plausible arguments under some prior case law, are sufficient to raise a federal controversy over which this Court may exercise jurisdiction. The Court finds this dispute arises under the Constitution of the United States and that federal question jurisdiction is present under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over pleaded federal claims that are neither frivolous nor clearly foreclosed by law.

Young v. Hosemann · filed 2010-02-25

Because the appellants’ federal claims are neither frivolous nor clearly foreclosed by law, they support subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a colorable constitutional claim apparent on the face of the complaint, even if the claim may fail on the merits.

Hamdi Ex Rel. Hamdi v. Napolitano · filed 2010-09-07

We agree with the district court that Hamdi has asserted a sufficient injury in fact for standing purposes, but we conclude that the district court erred in not recognizing that the constitutional nature of Hamdi’s alleged injury, apparent on the face of the complaint, provided subject-matter jurisdiction as a federal question within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over colorable federal claims unless they are immaterial, asserted solely to obtain jurisdiction, or wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Bergman v. Spruce Peak Realty, LLC · filed 2012-03-20

Sections 1331, 1332(d) and 1367 provide the bases for exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims, in the absence of any indication that the claims “ ‘clearly appear[ ] to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such [ ] claim[s are] wholly insubstantial and frivolous.’ ” Id. (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946)). Plaintiffs’ claims are neither insubstantial nor frivolous nor immaterial.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the alleged injuries do not amount to cognizable constitutional harm.

Klayman v. Kollar-Kotelly · filed 2012-09-26

Thus, absent a cognizable constitutional harm, plaintiffs claims cannot merit jurisdiction under either the federal question statute or Bivens.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a claim alleging a violation of constitutional rights even when the dispute also involves state law.

Stevenson v. Blytheville School District No. 5 · filed 2013-07-01

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Given plaintiffs’ allegations, the Court finds unpersuasive the Blytheville District’s arguments and authorities cited on subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's do not allege a predominantly state-law claim that implicates federal issues. They allege a violation of their constitutional rights. This Court concludes it has subject matter jurisdiction.

A conclusory assertion that a defendant violated constitutional rights does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Hill v. W.H.H. Trice and Company · filed 2014-01-30

His single conclusory statement that the defendant "violated [his] civil, constitutional and 631 Amendment" rights, z`a’. at 2, does not articulate a viable constitutional claim for the purpose of establishing federal question jurisdiction.

A complaint alleging a constitutional injury without governmental involvement fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Jones v. Bank of America · filed 2014-05-08

Jones does not concede that the second amended complaint fails to establish federal question jurisdiction under § 1331, but we hold that it does; it fails to allege governmental involvement in his alleged injury.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal question jurisdiction over claims that federal officials violated constitutional due process rights.

Candra v. Cronen · filed 2019-02-21

In their constitutional claims, the Candra Children allege that ICE's denial of their father's stay application violated their procedural and substantive due process rights. This claim arises from the Constitution and thus fits within this grant of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint alleges federal constitutional claims, even if it does not cite § 1983.

Colvin v. Leblanc · filed 2019-07-22

These allegations alone provide an appropriate basis for federal question jurisdiction and it is immaterial that § 1983 is not cited in the petition.

A complaint alleging violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments presents a federal question within § 1331 jurisdiction.

Mahuka v. Aila · filed 2019-08-26

Although the Government argues the Complaint fails to present “a cause of action against the United States based on statute or case law,” see Mem. in Supp. of Motion at 3, to the extent the Complaint alleges a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Complaint raises a federal question over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims seeking relief directly under the Constitution unless they are asserted solely to obtain jurisdiction or are wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Olaifa v. Mayorkas · filed 2019-10-15

But Olaifa’s due process claim does not fall in any gap; it arises under the Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal courts must entertain suits in which the complaint seeks recovery directly under the Constitution, except when the claims are “made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over a liberally construed Fifth Amendment access-to-courts claim.

Wade v. Wynn · filed 2020-05-14

Therefore, subject matter jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is denied.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of the United States Constitution.

Simon v. Corrections Corporation of America (n/k/a CoreCivic., Inc.) · filed 2020-09-30

Thus, Counts I through IX—all of which include constitutional claims—clearly invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over federal claims that are substantial enough to be heard even when they ultimately fail for pleading or derivative-action defects.

Moore v. J.W. Marriott, Jr. · filed 2021-06-11

As explained below, Plaintiff’s federal securities claims ultimately fail for failure to meet the requirements of a derivative suit imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 and for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). But they are not so insubstantial that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear them.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim alleging a First Amendment violation even when the APA does not itself confer jurisdiction.

Pitts v. Matevousian · filed 2021-08-12

However, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s constitutional claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his First Amendment rights, and the Court therefore proceeds to the remainder of Defendants’ argument under Rule 12(b)(6).

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges violations of federal constitutional rights, even if the complaint fails to state a viable claim.

Turner v. Place · filed 2022-06-07

Plaintiff does satisfy an initial hurdle, properly invoking the Court’s “federal question” jurisdiction by alleging violations of her constitutional rights.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of the United States Constitution.

O'Neel v. City of Folsom · filed 2022-07-25

Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because plaintiffs assert claims alleging violation of their rights under the United States Constitution.

Section 1331 gives jurisdiction over a claim arising under federal law unless the claim is so insubstantial that it does not present a federal controversy; defects in the claim’s merits do not defeat jurisdiction.

PEM Entities LLC v. County of Franklin · filed 2023-01-05

Only when a claim asserted under federal law is “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of [the Supreme Court], or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy” should the complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises claims under the United States Constitution.

BROWN v. SALEM COUNTY · filed 2023-03-01

Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint clearly brings this action at least in part arguing that her federal constitutional rights were violated (as did her original complaint) by referring to Fourth Amendment and Due Process violations. This is sufficient to raise a federal question for jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint at removal asserts claims under the United States Constitution.

Pyles v. PrimeCare Medical of West Virginia, Inc. · filed 2023-06-20

In this case, the Amended Complaint—which was the basis of removal—clearly asserted claims under the United States Constitution. (ECF No. 1-1 at 16 ¶¶ 68–69.) As such, removal was proper under federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over Fourth Amendment illegal-search and false-arrest claims.

Flores v. East Chicago City of · filed 2023-11-15

The Plaintiff’s illegal search and false arrest claims implicate the Fourth Amendment and § 1983. The Court thus has federal question jurisdiction and denies the Motion to Dismiss to the extent it argues the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law unless those claims are jurisdictional pretexts or wholly insubstantial or frivolous.

Proano v. Melrose Home Improvement Corp. · filed 2023-11-17

Nothing in the record suggests that Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims are immaterial, made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction, or wholly insubstantial or frivolous.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over complaints alleging violations of federal constitutional rights.

(PC) Hamilton v. Ables · filed 2024-03-05

Federal courts have original jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, plaintiff has alleged that officers used excessive force, retaliated against him, and failed to protect him in violation of his constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1 at 10-15.) Consequently, the court concludes that it has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when every federal claim is obviously without merit.

Kerr v. Northern Nevada Family Dental · filed 2024-06-20

Federal question jurisdiction does not exist when every federal claim is “unsubstantial.”

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Bishop Global Family Trust v. Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann P.C. · filed 2025-05-02

Further, Plaintiffs’ Original Petition in state court brought a cause of action for the violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, giving rise to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over complaints asserting violations of the United States Constitution.

McNeil v. Van Houten · filed 2025-07-22

The Court finds Defendant Cohen's jurisdictional arguments to be without merit as (1) the Complaint asserts claims for violations of the United States Constitution so this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) allegations of improper service, without a sworn affidavit, are insufficient to establish improper service, see United States v. Riser, No, 10— CV-4550, 2011 WL 1004566, at *3 (E.D.N_Y. Mar. 16, 2011).

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution.

Saleh v. Planters Bank & Trust Company Indianola, Mississippi · filed 2025-09-19

The Court has federal question jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ Constitutional claims.

Section 1331 permits a court to hear a habeas petitioner’s due process challenge and consider injunctive relief independently of the habeas petition.

Jaranow · filed 2026-01-06

Where a habeas petitioner raises a Due Process claim and also has invoked the Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court has “the authority both to entertain [the petitioner’s] constitutional challenges and to grant injunctive relief in response to them,” “irrespective of the accompanying habeas petition.” Roman v. Wolf, 977 F.3d 935, 941–42 (9th Cir. 2020).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging Fourth Amendment violations.

King · filed 2026-02-10

Specifically, Counts One and Two of Plaintiffs’ Complaint – which allege Defendants Yoder and Smith violated Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights – are the claims that implicate this Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction over a colorable claim brought directly under the Fourteenth Amendment even if the claim’s merits remain unresolved.

O'grady v. City Of Montpelier · filed 1978-03-27(a)

Colorable jurisdiction exists under Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946), Mount Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 276-81, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977), and Gentile v. Wallen, 562 F.2d 193, 195-96 (2d Cir. 1977).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a violation of a constitutional right, even without identifying a separate federal cause of action.

Price v. Automotive Finance Corporation · filed 2026-03-11

While Ms. Price argues that her failure to “allege a violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or any other statute that provides a private right of action in federal court,” ECF No. 6 ¶ 3, precludes federal jurisdiction, that is not so, because when “the Constitution is the source of the right allegedly violated, no other source of a right—or independent cause of action—need be identified,” Comm. on Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 81 (D.D.C. 2008).

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under the United States Constitution.

NOBREGA · filed 2026-06-18

The Court therefore readily concludes it has federal question jurisdiction over Mr. Nobrega’s claims and that the Defendants removal from state court was proper.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a claim under the U.S. Constitution, including a Fourth Amendment claim.

Love · filed 2026-06-26

On its face, the complaint alleges a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (providing for federal question jurisdiction over actions arising under United States Constitution).

Section 1331 permits federal courts to entertain federal employees’ constitutional claims for injunctive relief despite the availability of administrative remedies under the CSRA.

Mitchum v. Hurt · filed 1996-03-13

We assume that the power of the federal courts to award legal and equitable relief in actions under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 stems from the same source, see Bush, 462 U.S. at 374, 103 S.Ct. at 2409, but that does not mean that the factors that counsel against one type of relief are equally applicable with respect to the other. ... We therefore hold that Bush and the related Supreme Court decisions on which the defendants rely did not prevent the district court from entertaining the appellants' requests for injunctive relief.

Section 1331 provides district court jurisdiction when a pro se plaintiff’s factual allegations state a colorable constitutional tort claim.

Lewis v. D. C. Department of Corrections · filed 1976-04-08

Although there was no cause of action against District of Columbia officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418, 93 S.Ct. 602, 34 L.Ed.2d 613 (1973), Lewis’ pro se factual allegations and recitation of a jurisdictional basis in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 were sufficient to state a colorable claim for constitutional tort, with jurisdiction in the district court under Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946).

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction when the complaint alleges a constitutional tort.

Thomas v. District of Columbia · filed 1979-03-26

Dellums is authority for concluding that jurisdiction exists in this Court when the complaint alleges a constitutional tort.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a constitutional damages claim and related common law claims through pendent jurisdiction.

Parker v. District of Columbia · filed 1981-05-19

Section 1331 jurisdiction is predicated on the presence of a cause of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... Jurisdiction exists to hear plaintiff’s claim for damages for violations of his constitutional rights alleged to have occurred, and over the related common law claims.

Section 1331 covers a substantial, nonfrivolous constitutional claim even when deciding it requires examining state law.

First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Casari · filed 1982-01-06(a)

While we express no opinion as to whether the complaint presented a federal question through its allegation of federal statutory violations, we find that the allegations of an unconstitutional denial of due process rather clearly presented a substantial, non-frivolous question arising under the Constitution.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a constitutional claim that is wholly frivolous.

Condor Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation v. City of St. Paul, a Municipal Corporation · filed 1990-09-27

We find Condor’s claim under the Supremacy Clause to be specious and totally insubstantial. We therefore dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over constitutional claims even before immigration remedies are exhausted when Congress has not required exhaustion and the claim falls outside the immigration statute.

Xiao v. Reno · filed 1996-04-12

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have jurisdiction over constitutional claims. ... Here, where Congress has not specifically mandated exhaustion, we conclude that consistent with congressional intent and the INA, the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over Wang’s due process claim even though he had not exhausted administrative remedies with respect to his excludability.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims that are neither frivolous nor asserted solely to create jurisdiction.

Bickerstaff Clay Products Co. v. Harris County Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners · filed 1996-07-16

The district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 to entertain Bickerstaff's federal constitutional claims. ... Bickerstaff's federal constitutional claims are not "frivolous," nor were they asserted "solely for the purpose of [giving the district court subject matter] jurisdiction."

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction when a complaint, liberally construed, alleges a claim arising under the Constitution.

Bell v. Pleasantville Housing Authorit · filed 2011-08-26

We conclude that the District Court erred insofar as Bell‘s amended complaint, liberally construed and viewed in conjunction with his other filings below, contained allegations sufficient to invoke the District Court‘s original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a constitutional claim despite an alternative statutory remedy when Congress has not clearly precluded review.

Espinoza v. Pompeo · filed 2020-04-22

Plaintiff’s claim of a constitutional violation is sufficient to support jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint makes a nonfrivolous allegation of entitlement to relief under the Constitution or a federal statute.

Davis v. Potter · filed 2024-03-30

Thus, Plaintiff has pleaded allegations sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction. The Court therefore finds no plain error in the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that federal question jurisdiction exists here.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving federal law, but an obviously frivolous complaint does not establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Moses · filed 2026-02-06

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil cases, with some exceptions that are not relevant here, in only two instances: (1) under federal question jurisdiction, where the case involves an issue of federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or (2) under diversity jurisdiction where no defendant may be a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... And “because a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an obviously frivolous complaint, dismissal prior to service of process is permitted.” Id. ... Even reading the complaint with deference to Mr. Moses, the Court has failed to find any non-frivolous plausible basis for any cause of action. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed.

Federal-question jurisdiction does not extend to wholly insubstantial and frivolous claims.

(PS) Expose v. Speiller · filed 2021-06-25

However, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider claims that are “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998); Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537 (1974) (court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims that are “essentially fictitious,” “obviously frivolous” or “obviously without merit”); see also Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by & through Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 549-50 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that the “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” standard for dismissing claims operates under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of federal question jurisdiction). ... For this reason, plaintiff cannot maintain an APA claim against these defendants, and so the court should issue dismissal on this wholly-insubstantial and frivolous claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over patently insubstantial claims that present no federal question suitable for decision.

Kaufman v. Internal Revenue Service · filed 2011-05-26

For the reasons already stated, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ patently insubstantial Complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is wholly insubstantial or frivolous, or is immaterial and raised solely to obtain jurisdiction.

Strickland v. Holiday RV Superstores, Inc. · filed 1993-03-30

When a individual seeks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and “where the complaint ... is so drawn as to seek recovery directly under the constitution or laws of the United States, the federal court, but for two possible exceptions ... must entertain the suit”. ... The two possible exceptions are where the federal question “clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous”. ... Thus, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when the constitutional question pleaded is insubstantial.

Lawrence v. Stevens · filed 1973-12-20

The motion to convene a three-judge court is denied; the motion for preliminary injunctive relief is denied; the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a substantial constitutional question so as to vest this court with jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C., sections 1331 and 1343.

A purported federal claim that is facially wholly insubstantial and frivolous cannot support § 1331 jurisdiction and should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without reaching the merits.

Mainelli v. Providence Journal Company · filed 1962-12-31

On the face of the complaint itself it is evident that the claim of federal jurisdiction is wholly insubstantial and frivolous and could have been made only for jurisdictional purposes.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when the asserted federal question is insubstantial, frivolous, or advanced solely to invoke federal jurisdiction.

Cooper Agency, Inc. v. McLeod · filed 1964-09-08

The Court finds that the issues raised in these matters do not •create a federal question of any import and is of the opinion that plaintiffs invoke Section 1331 in a vain hope that jurisdiction might exist under this Section. The Supreme Court in Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939, field that jurisdiction may not be predicated on Section 1331 where its assertion is insubstantial or frivolous or is made .solely for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction.

A nonfrivolous federal statutory claim within Section 1331 must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, rather than for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, when the asserted federal private remedy does not exist.

O'Neill v. Maytag · filed 1964-12-29

Since the result in this case is not directly required by precedents of this court or of the Supreme Court, the complaint cannot be considered frivolous, and the proper disposition was to dismiss for failure to state a claim rather than for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction when the pleaded federal claim cannot be characterized as wholly insubstantial.

Magro v. Lentini Bros. Moving and Storage Co. · filed 1971-09-02

Jurisdiction over the federal claim is alleged under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court, in a Memorandum of Decision and Order dated June 8, 1970, found subject matter jurisdiction since the claim could not ... be characterized as wholly insubstantial.”

A frivolous constitutional claim does not support Section 1331(a) jurisdiction.

United States Ex Rel. Robert Blanco v. Rko Theatres Inc., D/B/A Rko Greenpoint · filed 1971-12-17(a)

Basing jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (1970), petitioner requested that the district court order the New York Supreme Court to grant Mrs. Blanco a general preference. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm. Mrs. Blanco was not deprived of a jury trial. The constitutional claim is frivolous.

Section 1331(a) gives a district court jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous claim arising under federal law even if the claim may ultimately fail to state a cause of action.

Tramble v. Converters Ink Company · filed 1972-06-15(a)

It is also equally clear that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a), 1343(4) because a federal district court always has jurisdiction to entertain a suit brought under the Constitution or laws of the United States unless the claim appears to a legal certainty to be wholly insubstantial and frivolous. ... As plaintiff’s claims are not clearly frivolous, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is absent when the federal question pleaded is wholly insubstantial.

Salazar v. Lee Eads, as Sheriff of Marion County · filed 1972-09-21

Having already voiced our agreement with the district court’s determination that petitioner’s attack on the constitutionality of Sections 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 20 of the IUCEA presented a wholly insubstantial federal question, we concur in the district court’s determination that petitioner’s complaint failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of either 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1343(3).

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists when a complaint seeks relief directly under federal law and its claims are not wholly insubstantial or frivolous.

Stearns v. Veterans of Foreign Wars · filed 1972-12-29

It appears to the Court that jurisdiction to entertain this suit does exist in that plaintiff seeks recovery directly under the Constitution and laws of the United States and her claims are not wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

A claim seeking relief directly under federal law supports Section 1331 jurisdiction unless it is immaterial and asserted solely to obtain jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

MOBIL OIL CORPORATION v. Kelley · filed 1973-01-11

A reading of these decisions amply demonstrates that plaintiff’s claim is not “wholly insubstantial or frivolous” or made “solely for the purpose of obtaining . . . jurisdiction.”

An insubstantial federal claim cannot confer Section 1331 subject-matter jurisdiction or support pendent jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Cantor v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · filed 1973-01-31

Given the insubstantiality of every federal claim presented here, a federal court lacks the jurisdictional power to consider the state law claims.

Insubstantial federal constitutional claims cannot support Section 1331 jurisdiction and require dismissal for want of jurisdiction.

Holiday Magic, Inc. v. Warren · filed 1973-04-03

Jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3). ... I have concluded that the federal constitutional claims are insubstantial. This conclusion prohibits me from requesting the convening of a three-judge court and requires me to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction.

A federal statutory claim that is at least not insubstantial is sufficient to avoid dismissal for lack of Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction.

Feliciano v. Romney · filed 1973-07-19(a)

The argument is that, with respect to those claims arising under the Housing Act, absent a contract thereunder, plaintiffs acquired no rights under the Housing Act and there could be no violations of its relocation requirements. However, as will presently appear, the issues raised under the Housing Act are at least not insubstantial, which is sufficient to avoid their dismissal on federal question jurisdictional grounds.

A material federal claim satisfies § 1331 if it was not pleaded solely to create jurisdiction and prior decisions do not render it frivolous.

PAAC v. Rizzo · filed 1974-06-14

Provided that the federal claim is material (and not raised solely for the purposes of obtaining jurisdiction) and is not rendered frivolous by prior case law, a federal question will exist for purposes of 28 U. S.C. § 1331.

A substantial federal constitutional claim invokes Section 1331 unless it is immaterial and asserted solely to obtain jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Licia T. M. Cardinale v. Washington Technical Institute · filed 1974-06-25(a)

... would appear to establish a sufficiently meritorious foundation for a claim of deprivation of procedural due process to survive an adverse motion for summary judgment, obviously set forth a claim that “arises under the Constitution ... of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), Thus, unless the District Court properly determines that one of two narrow exceptions is applicable, jurisdiction has attached and it must proceed to the merits.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction when enforcing federal constitutional or statutory rights is basic to the requested relief and the claims are neither insubstantial nor frivolous.

Girard v. 94th Street and Fifth Avenue Corp. · filed 1975-06-30(a)

... U.S.C. § 1331(a) gives this Court jurisdiction to hear the federal questions raised in plaintiff’s complaint since the enforcement of rights arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States is basic to the relief she seeks and the claims she alleges are neither insubstantial nor frivolous.

Section 1331 requires the asserted federal claims to have legal substance rather than be obviously frivolous, and the party invoking jurisdiction bears the burden of proving jurisdictional facts.

Expert Electric, Inc. v. Levine · filed 1975-07-24

Turning to defendant's Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ... plaintiffs, as the parties asserting jurisdiction, have the burden of proving all jurisdictional facts, ... Since jurisdiction over the action is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 — federal question jurisdiction — plaintiffs must show that the alleged federal claims are substantial, i. e., not obviously frivolous. ... It is plain from the complaint that plaintiffs have been denied neither due process nor equal protection of the laws, and accordingly, their claims are devoid of merit. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over substantial, nonfrivolous federal securities claims even if those claims are later dismissed on the merits.

Klaus v. Hi-Shear Corporation · filed 1975-12-15

The court had jurisdiction over the federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The federal issues presented were substantial and not frivolous; the district court will retain power to adjudicate the state claims even if it should ultimately dismiss all the federal claims.

A federal statutory claim should not be dismissed for lack of substantiality under Section 1331 unless it is so insubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.

Sturdevant v. Deer · filed 1976-02-18(a)

While the defendants do present a number of strong arguments in support of this statutory interpretation, they have not persuaded me that the plaintiffs’ claims are so unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit. Accordingly, the court should not dismiss such counts for lack of substantiality under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) confers jurisdiction over a constitutional claim only when the claim is substantial; an obviously frivolous or controlling-precedent-foreclosed claim must be dismissed for lack of federal-question jurisdiction.

Brenner v. State Board of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, Dealers & Salesmen · filed 1976-04-16(a)

It is clear that such a claim is, on its face, encompassed within the parameters of the Due Process Clause and § 1983, as well as the jurisdictional statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a) and 1343(3). However, those jurisdictional sections can only confer subject matter jurisdiction upon this Court if the constitutional claim is of sufficient substance to support that jurisdiction.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction when enforcing rights arising under the Constitution and federal laws is basic to the requested relief and the claims are neither insubstantial nor frivolous.

Cristina v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OF NEW YORK · filed 1976-08-13(a)

... U.S.C. § 1331(a) also gives this Court jurisdiction to hear the federal questions raised in plaintiffs complaint since the enforcement of rights arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States is basic to the relief he seeks, and the claims he alleges are neither insubstantial nor frivolous.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a non-insubstantial claim that a union breached its federal duty of fair representation by participating in non-enforcement of pension-fund royalty obligations.

Nedd v. United Mine Workers Of America · filed 1977-04-28

The allegation, that the Union’s actual and voluntary participation in non-enforcement of the obligation to pay royalties violated a federal law duty of fair representation, states a not insubstantial claim over which the court had § 1331 and § 1337 jurisdiction. That sufficed for purposes of pendent jurisdiction over the state law issues.

Section 1331 jurisdiction cannot rest on a constitutional claim that is wholly insubstantial to a legal certainty.

Schroeder v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n · filed 1977-05-19

In view of the foregoing, it appears to a legal certainty that Plaintiffs’ constitutional claim is wholly insubstantial and should therefore be dismissed.

Section 1331 does not support jurisdiction over a federal claim that binding precedent renders frivolous or insubstantial.

Palmer v. Ticcione · filed 1977-06-30

Defendants urge that the complaint be dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Federal claims are insubstantial only if “prior decisions inescapably render the claims frivolous.” ... Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss for want of a substantial federal question is granted.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question; a constitutional label is insufficient when the asserted federal connection is frivolous or immaterial to an ordinary negligence dispute.

McCarther v. Grady County · filed 1977-08-22

However, to give a federal court jurisdiction under § 1331 the federal question alleged must be substantial. ... Plaintiffs’ alleged violations of their Fourteenth Amendment rights might very well represent an attempt to obtain federal jurisdiction as the constitution seems to bear little relationship to the actual subject matter of this action. Likewise, Plaintiffs’ claimed violations of their constitutional rights are immaterial to the real controversy herein, namely liability for the accidental injuries and damages Plaintiffs allege. Accordingly, the Court finds and concludes that Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims are obviously without merit and therefore, no substantial federal question is present herein. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction of this action under § 1331 and Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed as to Deft. City of Chickasha, Oklahoma.

A complaint seeking rights under a federal statute arises under federal law for Section 1331(a) when interpreting that statute is central and the federal issue is neither immaterial nor wholly insubstantial or frivolous.

Robert Girardier and Susan L. Luzkow v. Webster College · filed 1977-08-24(a)

The plaintiffs sue on the theory that they acquired rights from the Bankruptcy Act which the college has violated. Whether the Act afforded such right to the plaintiffs is a matter of interpretation of a federal law and is thus a federal issue. ... The issue of the effect of a discharge is not immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction. Upon analysis of the merits of the issue, we conclude that the issue is not wholly insubstantial or frivolous. Jurisdiction thus lodged in the district court.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a directly asserted Fourteenth Amendment claim when the availability of that constitutional cause of action is unsettled and the claim is neither frivolous nor pleaded solely to obtain jurisdiction.

Gentile v. Wallen · filed 1977-09-15

Since the question whether a civil rights action may be brought directly under the Fourteenth Amendment when it cannot be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is an unsettled one, ... appellant’s assertion of Section 1331 jurisdiction over her Fourteenth Amendment claim cannot be considered to be frivolous or made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction, ... We accordingly have jurisdiction to consider appellant’s Fourteenth Amendment claim.

A constitutional challenge has sufficient substance to support Section 1331(a) arising-under jurisdiction when it presents a nonfrivolous claim under the Constitution, even before its merits are resolved.

Garrett v. Hoffman · filed 1977-11-02(a)

Without further comment on this argument, I note only that it has sufficient substance to afford a basis for § 1331(a) jurisdiction as a claim that “arises under” the Constitution.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is absent only when a federal claim is wholly insubstantial, obviously meritless, or rendered frivolous by controlling precedent; merely doubtful merits do not defeat jurisdiction.

Czajkowski v. State of Ill. · filed 1977-12-15

Those cases hold that federal courts are without jurisdiction to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are “wholly insubstantial,” “obviously without merit,” or “essentially fictitious.” ... Although we may have doubts concerning whether plaintiffs will prevail, the constitutional claims are not so obviously insubstantial or frivolous that the existence of a federal controversy is negated.

A complaint presents Section 1331 jurisdiction when resolving the asserted federal right requires construing the Constitution, unless the issue is immaterial, jurisdictionally contrived, wholly insubstantial, or frivolous.

Southpark Square Limited, a Mississippi Corporation v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, State Highway Department of the Sta · filed 1977-12-27

In federal question cases under § 1331, “where the complaint ... is so drawn as to seek recovery directly under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the federal court, but for two possible exceptions . . . must entertain the suit”. ... The two exceptions are where the federal question “clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous”. ... Only by construing that constitutional provision can we determine the validity of this claim. Thus, a question “arising under” the Constitution is presented in this case.

Section 1331 does not support a constitutional claim so insubstantial that precedent plainly forecloses it.

PDTC Owners Ass'n v. Coachella Valley County Water District · filed 1978-01-03

Nevertheless, a court lacks jurisdiction if the claims in the complaint are so attenuated and unsubstantial that they are absolutely devoid of merit or if the unsoundness of the claim is so apparent from previous decisions that the subject is fore ... closed.

A nonfrivolous constitutional claim gives a court § 1331 jurisdiction to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a valid cause of action.

Turpin v. Mailet · filed 1978-06-05

Since Turpin’s claim is not wholly frivolous, we clearly have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to determine whether he has stated a valid cause of action.

Section 1331(a) supports jurisdiction when enforcement of federal constitutional or statutory rights is basic to the requested relief and the asserted claims are neither insubstantial nor frivolous.

Kops v. New York Telephone Co. · filed 1978-09-19(a)

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) to hear the federal questions raised in plaintiffs’ amended complaint since the enforcement of rights arising under the constitution and laws of the United States is basic to the relief they seek, and the claims they assert are neither insubstantial nor frivolous.

A nonfrivolous procedural-due-process claim concerning alleged property rights raises a federal question sufficient for Section 1331 jurisdiction even before the existence of those property rights is decided.

Steinberg v. Elkins · filed 1979-04-30

The question whether, under the circumstances in this case, the plaintiffs actually enjoyed such unwritten property rights is yet to be decided. It is clear, nevertheless, that the case raises a federal question of sufficient magnitude to permit this court to exercise its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A claimed implied federal cause of action supports Section 1331 jurisdiction unless it is wholly insubstantial, frivolous, or patently meritless, even if the court later rejects the cause of action on the merits.

Dema v. Feddor · filed 1979-04-30

The claim that such a cause of action does exist not being “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” the court concludes that this claim cannot be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists over a federal claim unless it is wholly insubstantial, frivolous, or asserted solely to obtain federal jurisdiction.

De Malherbe v. International Union of Elevator Constructors · filed 1979-07-16

In this case, plaintiff’s contention that the operation of EINRTP involved federal action is certainly not insubstantial. Thus, the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and may proceed to address the federal action issue as an element of plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim.

Section 1331 jurisdiction requires more than an incantation of federal law, but does not require the federal contention to prevail on the merits if it is nonfrivolous.

Murphy v. Inexco Oil Company, J. P. Murphy v. Inexco Oil Company · filed 1980-02-08

Federal question jurisdiction is predicated upon the assertion of a claim arising under the constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, the assertion that the claim involves such a question must be more than incantation. While jurisdiction does not depend on the contention having ultimate merit, its mere recital cannot confer jurisdiction if the contention is frivolous or patently without merit.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction when a nonfrivolous claim substantially disputes the construction or effect of a federal statute that is a direct and essential element of the cause of action.

Spokane County Legal Services, Inc. v. Legal Services Corp. · filed 1980-02-28

We conclude, therefore, that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the suit by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) gives jurisdiction over a constitutional claim against a federal agency unless the claim is obviously meritless or clearly foreclosed by precedent.

Dumas v. Cleland · filed 1980-03-07(a)

Section 1331(a) grants jurisdiction to district courts irrespective of the amount in controversy when the action is against an agency of the United States and the claim arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. ... We cannot say at this juncture that their claim is obviously without merit. Furthermore we have found no prior decisions that foreclose plaintiffs’ claim and defendants have brought none to our attention. The court therefore has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331(a) supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over a constitutional claim that is not wholly insubstantial or frivolous.

Jensen v. Farrell Lines, Inc. · filed 1980-05-12(a)

The district court below properly found subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331(a), 477 F.Supp. at 346, since the constitutional claim stated is not “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”

Section 1331(a) jurisdiction exists when the complaint presents a federal claim that is not obviously frivolous, obviously meritless, essentially fictitious, or clearly foreclosed by precedent.

McGrath v. Zenith Radio Corp. · filed 1981-01-28(a)

It is settled that if the complaint sets forth a substantial claim, a case is presented within the federal jurisdiction. ... To be substantial, the claim need only be not “obviously frivolous,” “obviously without merit,” or “essentially fictitious.” ... We hold, therefore, that this case presents a substantial federal question and the district court properly exercised jurisdiction in hearing it.

Section 1331(a) establishes jurisdiction over a claim seeking relief directly under the Constitution unless the federal claim is jurisdictionally contrived or wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Lillian Willene Miller and Bobby Joe Miller v. Fred Stanmore and Fred A. Frey, Warden, Fci · filed 1981-02-09(a)

We conclude that the district court was in error and that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit under both § 1331(a) (federal question jurisdiction) and § 1346(b) (suit against the United States for money damages). ... Where the complaint seeks recovery directly under the Constitution, federal question jurisdiction is established, and dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is appropriate only (1) where the court decides that the federal claim is immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction, or (2) where the claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous. ... Since it is the alleged constitutional violation which gives rise to damages sought, a material question “arising under” the Constitution is presented in the complaint. Moreover, the federal question presented is neither wholly insubstantial nor frivolous: Supreme Court decisions have recognized jurisdiction on the basis of alleged constitutional violations, including alleged due process violations.

Section 1331 requires a federal court to hear a complaint seeking recovery directly under federal law unless the federal claim is immaterial, jurisdictionally contrived, wholly insubstantial, or frivolous.

Jonez P. Suthoff, Frances P. Miller and Inez W. Philibert, Plaintiffs v. Yazoo County Industrial Development Corporation · filed 1981-02-17

The applicable test for determining jurisdiction on the face of the pleadings is not whether the plaintiffs could actually recover, but whether the federal claim alleged is so patently without merit as to justify the district court’s dismissal for want of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a federal claim alleged in a complaint is defeated only when the claim is so patently meritless that jurisdictional dismissal is justified.

William J. Sisk, Jr. v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department · filed 1981-05-11

The applicable test for determining jurisdiction on the face of the pleadings is not whether the plaintiff could actually recover, but whether the federal claim alleged is so patently without merit as to justify the District Court’s dismissal for want of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal right to be an essential element of the complaint and does not support jurisdiction over attenuated, frivolous, or merely collateral federal issues.

Oliver v. Veterans Administration · filed 1981-05-11

Federal question must be substantial and must form an integral part of the complaint, and the fact that a mere incidental or collateral federal question may appear or lurk in the background of the record does not form a sufficient or adequate basis upon which federal jurisdiction may attach. ... Applying the above criteria, we must conclude that this suit does not arise under the laws, treaties or Constitution of the United States.

A constitutional civil-rights complaint invoking Section 1331(a) cannot be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless its claim is patently frivolous or wholly insubstantial on the complaint’s face.

Giulini v. Blessing · filed 1981-07-02(a)

A complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 charging denial of constitutional rights by a state agency may not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless it appears that the claim is patently frivolous or wholly insubstantial. ... Applying this standard, we are persuaded that the district court was obligated to entertain this action in which the complaint alleged the deprivation, under color of state law, of constitutional rights.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a federal constitutional claim unless it is insubstantial, frivolous, or merely formal, even if the claim later fails on the merits.

Coppedge v. Marsh · filed 1982-01-06

Federal jurisdiction in this case could be based either on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1361. ... The exceptions noted by the Court in ... allow a federal court to dismiss a claim for lack of jurisdiction where there is no “substantial” federal question presented. This is so even though a claim alleges a violation of federally guaranteed rights that would appear to grant jurisdiction under § 1331. ... We cannot agree with defendants that plaintiff has failed to assert a substantial federal question, or that the doctrine of sovereign immunity prohibits the exercise of jurisdiction in this case. ... We find that plaintiff’s federal claims are not frivolous nor are they a mere matter of form; therefore, we find that we have jurisdiction to decide plaintiff’s constitutional claims.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction when a complaint alleges federal claims that are not patently frivolous, even if those claims are later dismissed on the merits.

Grasso v. United States · filed 1982-03-31

Therefore, jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the plaintiff alleges federal claims that are not patently frivolous. The federal claims arise under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a claim premised on federal law fails only when the federal claim is wholly insubstantial, frivolous, or asserted solely to manufacture jurisdiction.

Meyer v. Amerada Hess Corp. · filed 1982-06-07

Under the well-established rule of ... a cause of action premised upon a federal statute or the Constitution is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction only if it is “wholly insubstantial”, “frivolous” or “immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction”.

A federal claim is jurisdictionally insubstantial under Section 1331 only when patently meritless, improbable, or foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.

Demarest v. United States · filed 1983-10-20

A federal question is jurisdiction-ally insubstantial if it is patently without merit, or so insubstantial, improbable, or foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent as not to involve a federal controversy. ... Demarest’s fee challenge is not so completely devoid of merit that it presents no substantial federal question, as our discussion of the merits of that challenge will demonstrate.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists over a constitutional claim unless it is immaterial and asserted solely to obtain jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous; possible failure on the merits does not defeat jurisdiction.

Silverman v. Marion Barry, Mayor of the District of Columbia · filed 1984-03-19

Under section 1331, a complaint may be dismissed where the alleged constitutional violation “clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” ... Under either standard, appellants have established federal court jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction requires a substantial federal claim, so a frivolous claim or one foreclosed by authoritative precedent must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Maroney v. University Interscholastic League · filed 1985-07-01

Jurisdiction purporting to be premised on the presence of a federal question attaches only if the complaint itself states a substantial federal claim. ... Thus, we must dismiss for want of jurisdiction if the federal claim presented is frivolous or is foreclosed by prior authoritative decisions.

State tort claims do not arise under federal law merely because the Price-Anderson Act limits liability; a wholly insubstantial claim of federalization cannot support Section 1331 jurisdiction.

Kiick v. Metropolitan Edison Co. · filed 1986-02-19

This statutory grant of jurisdiction clearly would not have been necessary had Congress intended the Price-Anderson Act to “replace” state tort law; instead, jurisdiction over all nuclear accidents, “extraordinary” or not, would have been available under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331 or 1337(a). ... We hold, therefore, that petitioners' claims that these actions “arise under” the Price-Anderson Act are “ ‘wholly insubstantial’ and provide no basis for federal jurisdiction.”

A district court with § 1331 jurisdiction may decide a pre-enforcement challenge's ripeness on the merits despite an argument that the asserted federal claims are insubstantial.

Mississippi Chemical Corporation v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · filed 1986-03-25

The EEOC urges that the "doctrine of insubstantiality” precludes jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ... At the agreement of the parties, the district court focused on ripeness. The district court did not err in exercising its jurisdiction to decide the ripeness question on the merits.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists over a state-law claim when the complaint presents a necessary, substantial, and nonfrivolous federal question whose resolution may determine the claim.

Garvin v. Alumax Of South Carolina · filed 1986-04-01

Since the plaintiff's complaint presents a substantial federal question which it is necessary to determine, we conclude that federal question jurisdiction is present. That there is jurisdiction to adjudicate, however, does not suggest that the plaintiff must necessarily prevail on that question. A federal court does not lose jurisdiction to adjudicate because resolution of the federal question ultimately goes against the plaintiff. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 776, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946). In determining our jurisdiction, it is enough to observe that the district judge adopted the plaintiff's contentions, and this court cannot say that the contentions are insubstantial or frivolous.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists when an asserted federal cause of action is substantial rather than wholly insubstantial or frivolous, even if later precedent establishes that the cause of action fails on the merits.

Hoffman v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · filed 1988-08-30

In summary, we have concluded that, with the exception of the thirteen cases previously noted, all Ohio plaintiffs who originally filed their actions in federal court intended to invoke federal question jurisdiction based, at least in part, on an implied cause of action under the FDCA. It is also evident that under existing case law a sufficient basis for section 1331 jurisdiction existed to make binding on those plaintiffs the adverse verdict which actually resulted. ... As the case law indicates, a substantial federal question is presented as long as the pleadings invoking federal question jurisdiction are not “so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit,” “wholly insubstantial,” “obviously frivolous,” “plainly unsubstantial,” or “no longer open to discussion.”

A purported federal claim that is frivolous and insubstantial does not present a federal question sufficient for Section 1331 jurisdiction or support pendent jurisdiction over state claims.

George D. Newman & Sons, Inc. v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission · filed 1988-10-03

In addition, the first count is so frivolous that it fails to present a substantial federal question at all. Therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as to the first count. ... Given the lack of any merit or substance in plaintiffs first claim, the second claim cannot properly rest on pendent jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction when asserted constitutional claims arising from alleged subversion of bankruptcy proceedings are insubstantial.

Yamamoto v. Thrift Guar. Corp. of Hawaii · filed 1989-12-01

We agree with the district court that these allegations are so insubstantial as not to provide the court with federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a constitutional claim unless the asserted federal question is frivolous or immaterial and pleaded solely to manufacture jurisdiction.

Sarit v. Drug Enforcement Administration · filed 1991-01-30

Plaintiff has claimed jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. ... In the instant case, plaintiffs’ claims clearly are not frivolous; plaintiffs contend that the search and seizure upon which the forfeiture proceeding was founded violated the fourth amendment because it was war-rantless and without consent. Moreover, plaintiffs contend that the forfeiture proceeding itself violated the fifth amendment because there was no sufficient notice. I find, therefore, that plaintiffs have met both the sovereign immunity and the substantive jurisdictional hurdles.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a contrived constitutional claim that merely disputes a state court’s discretionary application of state law.

Alnutt v. New York · filed 1993-02-11

Thus it is apparent that the essence of plaintiff’s claim is not that the statutes themselves are unconstitutional, but that he disagrees with the discretionary application of the statutes in his case by the New York State courts. Such a disagreement does not rise to the level of a constitutional issue. Plaintiff's constitutional claim is immaterial and contrived for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction; thus it falls outside the scope of § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over a non-frivolous claim grounded in federal law.

Palmer v. Hospital Authority · filed 1994-06-21

There is no dispute that COBRA creates a private cause of action, grounded in federal law, sufficient to create federal question jurisdiction against Patterson. 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(d)(2)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... As a result, the Georgia Plaintiffs originally asserted a non-frivolous federal question claim against both Bates and Patterson.

Section 1331 permits dismissal for lack of federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claims are insubstantial or frivolous.

Veale v. Penuche’s Ale House · filed 1998-11-02

The court may dismiss the complaint for want of federal subject matter jurisdiction, however, only if the court determines that the claims are insubstantial or frivolous.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over any non-frivolous federal claim even if the claim later fails on the merits.

Bollard v. The California Province Of The Society Of Jesus · filed 1999-12-01

Failure to state a claim under federal law is not the same thing as failure to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. S 1331. Any non-frivolous assertion of a federal claim suffices to establish federal question jurisdiction, even if that claim is later dismissed on the merits under Rule 12(b)(6).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is so insubstantial and devoid of merit that it presents no colorable federal question.

Kroll v. Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Chief Counsel for the New York State Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judic · filed 2001-03-21

The complaint simply fails to invoke federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or patent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over a non-frivolous federal statutory claim even if the claim might later fail on the merits.

United States Ex Rel. McCarthy v. Straub Clinic & Hospital, Inc. · filed 2001-04-13

Moreover, under Ninth Circuit law, “[a]ny non-frivolous assertion of a federal claim suffices to establish federal question jurisdiction, even if that claim is later dismissed on the merits.” ... Here, the Complaint does not appear frivolous on its face. Therefore, the court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted bases for federal jurisdiction are patently frivolous.

Glover v. Premierbank · filed 2003-02-25

Finally, Glover’s purported bases of federal question jurisdiction (for instance, that a breach of trust “by definition” violates federal law and that the State of Wisconsin violated the Contracts Clause of the Constitution) are patently frivolous.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on an alleged conflict with federal law when that claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Hill v. Kansas Gas Service Co. · filed 2003-03-26

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ suggestion, however, that statement does not provide that jurisdiction will always be proper under § 1331 whenever a plaintiff alleges that a defendant’s conduct conflicted with or violated a federal statute. ... For these reasons, we hold that Plaintiffs’ allegations that the KCC’s orders and Defendants’ conduct conflicted with or violated a federal statute or ruling issued thereunder are “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts a non-frivolous federal claim, even if the claim later fails on the merits.

Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. General Electric · filed 2004-03-16

Let us remember that the standard for establishing federal jurisdiction is even less stringent than that required to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). As we have explained, “Any non-frivolous assertion of a federal claim suffices to establish federal question jurisdiction, even if that claim is later dismissed on the merits.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a frivolous suit whose alleged facts cannot constitute a violation of federal law.

Thornton v. Omni Glass & Paint, Inc. · filed 2004-05-26

A frivolous suit can be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the factual circumstances alleged in the complaint cannot constitute a violation of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Crawford v. Wilker · filed 2005-10-19

We also reject plaintiff’s argument that he has stated a federal question for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on his claim that his due process rights were violated by the Wyoming state authorities’ delay in notifying him of Cody’s mother’s voluntary relinquishment of custody in favor of the Department of Family Service. ... we again conclude that the claim is frivolous, and therefore not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Section 1331 does not confer subject matter jurisdiction over frivolous federal claims.

Sundquist Homes Inc. v. Snohomish County · filed 2006-01-06

But we do not have subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331 over frivolous federal claims.

Section 1331 does not confer original jurisdiction over a constitutional claim that is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Howard v. Wal-Mart · filed 2006-03-15

Appellant’s constitutional claims are insubstantial and frivolous; consequently, the district court lacked original jurisdiction over his case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is frivolous.

Cotton v. Burgess · filed 2006-07-12

“Dismissal for want of jurisdiction is appropriate only if the federal claim is frivolous or a mere matter of form.” ... A review of Cotton’s complaint reveals that his claims are frivolous.

Section 1331 permits dismissal for lack of federal-question jurisdiction in the rare case where the asserted federal claim is wholly insubstantial and lacks a plausible factual foundation.

American Copper & Brass, Inc. v. Halcor S.A. · filed 2007-05-02

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants the Court original jurisdiction over civil actions involving federal questions generally, and § 1337 grants jurisdiction over commerce and antitrust regulations specifically. ... The Court recognizes that the substantiality doctrine is applicable to deny subject matter jurisdiction in only the rarest of cases, but the Court deems the instant complaint to be such a case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims so insubstantial that they fail even to arise under federal law.

Goros v. County of Cook and Michael Sheahan, as Sheriff of Cook County · filed 2007-06-11

But some theories are such piffle that they fail even to make out claims arising under federal law, and these must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not support federal-question jurisdiction over a claim whose lack of substance is foreclosed by prior decisions.

Cunningham v. Lenape Regional High District Board of Education · filed 2007-06-25

The substantiality doctrine holds that a claim of federal subject matter jurisdiction is insubstantial where previous decision of the court foreclose any room for further inquiry.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over federal claims that completely lack merit.

First & Beck, a Nevada LLC v. Bank of the Southwest · filed 2007-12-17

Similarly, the district court properly determined that it did not have federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, over F&B’s asserted federal causes of action pled under 12 U.S.C. §§ 85, 503 and 1972. Those causes of action completely lacked merit.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a federal claim that is plainly frivolous.

Ledford v. Peeples · filed 2009-05-22

Here, co-plaintiffs’ federal securities fraud claims were plainly and indisputably frivolous. ... Co-plaintiffs’ inability to invoke the district court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 78aa for Count One did not foreclose their right to litigate the claims asserted in Counts Two through Seven.

Federal-question jurisdiction permits dismissal when the asserted federal claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Williams v. ALFA Insurance Agency · filed 2009-09-24

Therefore, any claim under the Privacy Act is “wholly insubstantial.” A claim may be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if it is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”

Section 1331 jurisdiction may be defeated when the asserted federal claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Ledford v. Peeples · filed 2010-05-06

Federal jurisdiction may be defeated when the alleged federal claim “‘clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.’” ... Here, co-plaintiffs’ federal securities fraud claims were plainly and indisputably frivolous.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is clearly frivolous.

Ballou v. Vancouver Police Officers Guil · filed 2010-07-26

Because the federal claim was clearly frivolous, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over federal claims that are wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Blankenship v. Gulf Power Company · filed 2013-11-20

Here, the district court properly concluded that Blankenship’s federal claims were so patently frivolous that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is not defeated by failure to state a claim unless the federal claim is so insubstantial or devoid of merit that it presents no federal controversy.

Gilbert v. Donahoe · filed 2014-04-30

Rather, “[d]ismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because of the inadequacy of the federal claim is proper only when the claim is so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of [the Supreme] Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.”

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over an insubstantial federal claim, including a § 1983 claim premised solely on a private insurer's compliance with state insurance requirements.

Guinn v. Farmers Insurance Co. · filed 2014-06-09

Federal courts must dismiss a federal claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction “when the claim is so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of [the Supreme] Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). ... Because Farmers is a private insurer rather than a state actor, Plaintiff does not have a federal claim that can support § 1331 jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law legal malpractice claims supported only by constitutional references that are immaterial and made solely to obtain jurisdiction or wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Gibson v. York · filed 2014-06-23

Her remaining claims consist of allegations of legal malpractice, and her references to constitutional amendments appear to be either immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining federal jurisdiction or wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over federal claims that fail to state a cause of action when the claims are not utterly frivolous.

McCoy v. Iberdrola Renewables, Inc. · filed 2014-07-28

Even if the federal claim fails to state a cause of action, the district court retains jurisdiction to say so. ... Suffice it to say there was at least some room for argument about market power, so the alleged claim was not “utterly frivolous,” nor was the theory of a combination between Gamesa and Iberdrola.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a Fifth Amendment claim against private parties when Supreme Court precedent forecloses the claim as wholly insubstantial.

Araya v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2014-12-30

Araya’s Fifth Amendment claim against Chase and Shapiro & Burson is insufficient to sustain jurisdiction because it has been foreclosed by the Supreme Court.

Failure to state a federal claim does not defeat federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331 unless the claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Reed v. Columbia St. Mary's Hospital · filed 2015-03-30

Failure to state a claim does not deprive a court of subject-matter jurisdiction unless the claim is “wholly in- substantial and frivolous,” which is a much more stringent No. 14-2592 7 standard that is rarely satisfied.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a wholly insubstantial and frivolous claim, although jurisdiction ordinarily is distinct from the viability of the underlying claim.

H.M.G. v. Johnson · filed 2015-04-09

We also affirm the district court’s holding that it lacked federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. While the jurisdictional inquiry is ordinarily distinct from an assessment of the viability of the underlying claim, this general principle does not apply where, as here, the claim is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 681-83 (1946); Carlson v. Principal Fin. Grp., 320 F.3d 301, 306 (2d Cir. 2003); see also Hernstadt v. Hernstadt, 373 F.2d 316, 317-18 (2d Cir. 1967).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over patently insubstantial claims based on essentially fictitious allegations.

Odemns v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2015-05-06

It is clear beyond cavil that a court may act sua sponte and dismiss claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P . 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, including claims so “patently insubstantial” that no federal question suitable for decision can be discerned. ... Because P laintiff’s claims are patently insubstantial, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over P laintiff’s complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claims are wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Foley v. Orange County · filed 2016-01-29

Because we find that these federal claims on which the District Court’s federal-question jurisdiction was based are frivolous under Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946), we vacate the District Court’s orders. ... The District Court therefore lacked federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claims are wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

David W. Foley, Jr. v. Orange County · filed 2016-01-29

The District Court therefore lacked federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claims are legally frivolous.

Antonacci v. City of Chicago · filed 2016-03-18

Because Antonacci’s federal claims are legally frivolous, and because the record shows that diversity of citizenship is lacking, the district court correctly dismissed this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over federal claims that are too insubstantial.

Le v. McGreevy · filed 2017-06-01

The district court properly dismissed Le and Ninh’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the federal claims were too insubstantial to confer jurisdiction.