28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint whose asserted federal claims are wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Warren v. City of Greensboro · filed 2017-11-17

Warren alleges jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... For these reasons, Warren’s complaint, including all “supplements,” is so wholly insubstantial and frivolous 'that it fails to raise' a claim' over which the court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is wholly insubstantial, frivolous, or obviously without merit.

Graceful LLC v. Master Holdings Inc. · filed 2019-10-11

Although the Supreme Court has cautioned against eliminating the distinction “between failing to raise a substantial federal question for jurisdictional purposes . . . and failing to state a claim for relief on the merits,” the Supreme Court has also instructed that federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is lacking where the asserted claim for relief is “‘essentially fictitious,’ ‘wholly insubstantial,’ ‘obviously frivolous,’ and ‘obviously without merit.’” Shapiro v. McManus, 136 S. Ct. 450, 455- 56 (2015). Applying this standard, we agree with the District Court that Hariprasad failed to raise a colorable federal claim and therefore that the District Court had no subject matter jurisdiction over Hariprasad’s suit.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims that are insubstantial on their face.

Greene v. Sloane · filed 2019-11-08

As the District Court explained, although Greene cited 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in both of his complaints and mentioned Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., in his second complaint, his claims were plainly “insubstantial on their face” given his underlying allegations and thus could not reach the threshold to trigger federal jurisdiction.

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

Sciotto v. Association of Apartment Owners of Hanalei Bay Resort, The · filed 2019-12-31

Here, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ asserted federal claim is not colorable or arguable; it falls in the category of “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” or “patently without merit.”

Federal-question jurisdiction is absent for claims that are wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Henson v. Howard University · filed 2020-02-10

Yet, such a dismissal is reserved for claims that are “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” and therefore lack subject-matter jurisdiction to be heard.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over frivolous claims or federal claims asserted solely to obtain jurisdiction.

Schmidt v. Fuiks · filed 2020-03-06

But claims may not invoke federal-question jurisdiction in the first instance if they were frivolous when filed or if they were “immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction.” Restoration Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Gutierrez, 880 F.3d 339, 346 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Bell, 327 U.S. at 682–83). Here, the cores of Schmidt’s claims—alleging fraud, negligence, and medical malpractice—all arise under state, not federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an insubstantial and frivolous federal claim.

Olmstead v. Hoppe · filed 2020-03-27

The Court finds that Olmstead’s Section 1985 claim is insubstantial and frivolous, barring federal-question jurisdiction.

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

(PS) Conerly v. Superior Court of California County of Sacramento · filed 2020-04-29

Even treated liberally, the court has no subject matter over plaintiffs’ claims. ... Further, the undersigned finds the associated “conspiracy” claim as between these Superior Court judges and Tarpin to be conclusory and frivolous on their face.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a constitutional claim so insubstantial or devoid of merit that it presents no federal controversy.

Pritchard v. Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc. · filed 2020-06-01

Federal question jurisdiction exists if the cause of action arises from the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... “This exception applies when the federal claim is ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.’” Yeh Ho v. Sabocik, 775 Fed. App’x 551, 553 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998)). Where this narrow exception applies, dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is proper. Id. The Court finds plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim falls within this narrow exception.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a claim that appears to arise under federal law is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Lauter v. FDA · filed 2020-09-18

While on the face of Lauter’s Amended Complaint, Lauter raises a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because said claim “is wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” we find his federal claim inadequate to confer jurisdiction. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 683–84 (1946)).

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a constitutional claim despite its possible failure on the merits, unless the claim was made solely to obtain jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Thompson v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 2020-10-08

The Court has jurisdiction over this action, regardless of Mr. Thompson’s chances at success on the merits of his claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that is insubstantial and devoid of merit.

Mitchell v. DHR · filed 2020-10-28

A claim that is insubstantial and devoid of merit does not invoke the court’s federal-question jurisdiction and is due to be dismissed.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims so insubstantial or frivolous that they do not present a federal controversy.

(PS) Ehrenreich v. Watson · filed 2020-11-16

However, the Supreme Court has held that 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.” ... However, the undersigned finds these claims wholly frivolous.

A federal claim that is wholly insubstantial and frivolous does not support subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Joseph Dennis Gilberti, Jr. v. Governor of the State of Florida · filed 2020-11-19

For these reasons, the district court correctly determined that Gilberti’s complaint warranted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) because his claims were “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”

Section 1331 does not support federal-question jurisdiction over purported federal claims that are frivolous and lack an arguable basis in law or fact.

Payton v. Bizal · filed 2021-02-08

To the extent plaintiff invokes these provisions of federal law, the Court finds that the purported claims are frivolous, i.e. lacking an “arguable basis in law or in fact.” See United States v. Dunham, 995 F.2d 45, 46 (5th Cir. 1993). Thus, they do not support the Court’s exercise of federal question jurisdiction. See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 89.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is wholly insubstantial.

GLEN RIDDLE STATION, L.P. v. MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP · filed 2021-03-25

In sum, because GRS’s § 1983 procedural due process claim is “wholly insubstantial,” the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims so frivolous that they do not present a federal controversy.

(PS) Bird v. Newsom · filed 2021-04-08

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.” ... To the extent that plaintiff is attempting to assert such claims, they are frivolous on their face and should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Lopez v. Dang · filed 2021-04-08

In sum, Plaintiffs’ federal claims are wholly insubstantial and frivolous and therefore do not demonstrate federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give a district court federal-question jurisdiction over a wholly insubstantial and frivolous federal claim.

Toddle Inn Franchising, LLC v. KPJ Associates LLC · filed 2021-08-11

Critically for our purposes, just because a complaint alleges a federal claim does not automatically mean that the district court has subject-matter jurisdiction. And that is because a court cannot consider "wholly insubstantial and frivolous" claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim whose allegations are wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

VANLOAN v. THE NATION OF ISLAM · filed 2021-08-16

Even liberally construed, however, VanLoan’s Section 1983 claims offer the sort of insubstantial and frivolous allegations that are so devoid of merit that they cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question.

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

Gatzke v. City of West Bend · filed 2021-09-21

If the § 1983 claims were “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” and alleged solely to provide a basis for federal jurisdiction, then they would not engage the court’s federal-question jurisdiction and could not provide a basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Calixte v. Susan Ray Equities Inc. · filed 2022-01-12

A case arises under federal law for purposes of Section 1331 “if a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” ... But any assertions of federal jurisdiction under those statutes appear wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

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

KENNEDY v. ESURANCE · filed 2022-01-27

However, the Court cannot discern any possible basis for a federal claim here. In other words, if Kennedy intended to raise federal claims, they are “wholly insubstantial,” Shapiro v. McManus, 577 U.S. 39, 45-46 (2015), and, therefore, insufficient to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over purported federal claims so insubstantial and frivolous that they present no federal controversy.

Crossdale v. Swain · filed 2022-01-31

The allegations of Counts I, II, and III are so insubstantial and frivolous that the counts are completely devoid of any federal controversy which could serve as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

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

(PS) Eisner v. Hollister · filed 2022-02-07

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.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims so insubstantial or frivolous that they do not present a federal controversy.

(PS) Gigena v. Baker · filed 2022-02-10

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.” ... A federal court in the Eastern District of California has no authority to order otherwise, and so plaintiffs case is frivolous.

Section 1331 does not support federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Cavaliere v. Comcast Corporation · filed 2022-03-18

And, unless Cavaliere adequately pleads this claim when amending in a manner that is not wholly insubstantial and frivolous, the Truth-in-Billing rules cannot serve as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when asserted federal claims are wholly frivolous and made solely to obtain a federal forum.

Pristavec v. Meno Holdings SPV, LP · filed 2022-03-25

Although Plaintiffs cite federal statutory provisions, those references do not automatically confer subject matter jurisdiction on this court via 28. U.S.C. § 1331. ... Viewed in light of the procedural history of this matter, the ongoing New York state court breach of forward purchase contract action, and the contracts themselves, this Court concludes that the assertion of Section 12 and Section 5 violations of the Securities Act is an improper attempt to obtain federal subject matter jurisdiction over a state-law matter. Plaintiffs’ asserted claim as purchasers under Section 12 and Section 5 are wholly frivolous. There is no basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when any possible federal claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Chlentzos-Williams v. Square Inc · filed 2022-04-20

Further, even under the most liberal of constructions, any federal claims Ms. Chlentzos-Williams may be asserting would be “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” ... As a result, the Court finds there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is immaterial or wholly insubstantial.

Vazquez v. Jawonio · filed 2022-05-17

Even if a plaintiff invokes federal-question jurisdiction, if that jurisdiction is premised on an “immaterial” or “wholly insubstantial” federal claim, the case may be dismissed.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a federal claim unless the claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous; a claim’s possible failure on the merits does not itself defeat jurisdiction.

Resnick v. KrunchCash, LLC · filed 2022-05-20

Even if Plaintiffs’ federal claim ultimately fails on the merits, the due process claim was not so wholly insubstan- tial and frivolous as to deprive the district court of the power to adjudicate.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim so patently without merit that it requires no meaningful consideration.

Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden · filed 2022-06-09

As such, Plaintiff’s claims are “so patently without merit that the claim[s] require[] no meaningful consideration.” ... Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and Plaintiff’s claims against the Federal Defendants must be dismissed.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a federal claim unless the claim is wholly insubstantial or frivolous.

Vernon Hill, II v. Cohen · filed 2022-07-06

The Hill Directors’ Exchange Act claims are thus not so “wholly insubstantial” that they fail to create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a Defend Trade Secrets Act claim when the claim is not frivolous.

Bioconvergence LLC D/B/A Singota Solutions v. Singh · filed 2022-08-22

Singh suggests that this federal claim is frivolous for two reasons, but each fails. ... The Court therefore finds that it has jurisdiction over this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Jones v. Embassy Suites, Inc. · filed 2023-01-05

Thus, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” and is, accordingly, insufficient to establish federal-question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over a quiet title claim arising under federal Indian allotment law and treaties.

Wright v. Wallace · filed 2023-03-30

It is also indisputable that Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Wallaces arises under the law(s) and/or treaties of the United States, which Plaintiff expressly acknowledges by reference to section 6 of the 1908 Act. ... The count finds that it has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim against the Wallaces under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil claims arising under federal law or treaties.

Wright v. United States · filed 2023-03-30

The count finds that it has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim against the Wallaces under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff’s motion to remand is therefore DENIED.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a federal claim that is immaterial and made solely to obtain jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Gu v. Jimenez · filed 2023-06-22

A federal court, however, lacks jurisdiction over a federal claim that “clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” or is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the only federal claim is frivolous and the remaining claims arise under state law.

Johnson v. Astorg Auto of Charleston Inc. · filed 2023-09-29

Federal question jurisdiction “exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... “And while in general an FDCPA claim certainly does ‘arise under’ federal law, it does not confer jurisdiction in this civil action because, as discussed above, Plaintiffs FDCPA claim is frivolous.” [ECF No. 38, at 23-24]. Because this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, this case must be dismissed.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim unless the claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Patton v. Williams · filed 2023-10-18

Although the question is close, the court is satisfied that Ms. Patton’s claim is not “so patently without merit” as to divest the court of jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no federal claim or facts showing that relief depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Mathu v. Montefiore Medical Center · filed 2023-10-27

The Court does not have federal question jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The complaint does not set forth any federal claims or otherwise assert facts suggesting that “federal law creates the cause of action or that [Plaintiff’s] right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Kain, 485 F.3d 730, 734-35 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 690 (2006)).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a federal claim clearly foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.

Tensley v. Sprint / The New T-Mobile · filed 2023-12-19

Because the Lanham Act claim “is clearly foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent,” it fails to invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is facially frivolous and insubstantial.

Lettieri v. Securus Technologies · filed 2024-05-13

Further, although the court would ordinarily grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his pleadings especially to cure the jurisdictional deficiencies identified, the court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over all of Plaintiffs claims alleged (not just the claim pursuant to the Lanham Act) because they are incongruent, unintelligible, and facially deficient.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when references to federal law are insubstantial and serve as a pretext for state-law claims.

Hensley v. Engler · filed 2024-08-15

The references to federal law in the complaint and in plaintiff’s opposition brief are “insubstantial and . . . pretextual state law claims,” insufficient to confer federal subject matter jurisdiction. PEM Entities LLC, 57 F.4th at 183.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is insubstantial and made solely to obtain jurisdiction.

Ghafoori v. Bank of America Home Loans · filed 2024-09-13

Plaintiffs have been unable to plead a substantial federal claim despite multiple opportunities to do so. Their RESPA and Regulation X claims “clearly appear[]to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction.” Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 89. As such, the court has no subject matter jurisdiction over this complaint and must dismiss it in its entirety.

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

Bowman v. America Government · filed 2024-10-11

Where an alleged claim “is wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” there is no federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits dismissal for lack of federal-question jurisdiction when a claim is made solely to obtain jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Evans-Williams v. Sunstates Management Corporation · filed 2024-11-19

Where factual findings regarding subject matter jurisdiction are intertwined with the merits, a federal court may dismiss a claim invoking federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction only if the claim “is immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” or is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a federal claim is clearly foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.

Copeland v. ETrade · filed 2025-01-10

However, “[w]hen a federal claim appears on the face of the complaint, ‘[d]ismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is only proper in the case of a frivolous or insubstantial claim, i.e., a claim which has no plausible foundation or which is clearly foreclosed by a prior Supreme Court decision.’” Young, 598 F.3d at 188 (quoting Bell, 549 F.2d at 344). Here, Copeland’s claims under the recordkeeping provisions of § 17(a) of the Exchange Act are clearly foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a claim that appears federal on the face of the complaint is frivolous or insubstantial.

Farooq v. Cody Cofoer & James · filed 2025-02-25

However, “[w]hen a federal claim appears on the face of the complaint, ‘[d]ismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is . . . proper in the case of a frivolous or insubstantial claim, i.e., a claim which has no plausible foundation or which is clearly foreclosed by a prior Supreme Court decision.’” Young v. Hosemann, 598 F.3d 184, 188 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Bell, 549 F.2d at 344). Here, Farooq’s § 1983 claims are properly seen as “frivolous or insubstantial” because he is suing a private law firm and does not otherwise allege that the firm acted under color of state law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over obviously frivolous federal claims that present no federal controversy.

Hayden v. Campbell · filed 2025-04-11

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims here do not create a federal controversy to sufficiently invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. The Court simply does not have federal question jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when a purported federal claim is made solely to obtain jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Edwards v. Terminix · filed 2025-04-15

A claim invoking federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 “may be dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction if it is ‘immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction’ or is ‘wholly insubstantial and frivolous.’” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 n. 10, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1097 (2006) (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83, 66 S. Ct. 773, 90 L. Ed. 939 (1946)).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over constitutional claims so devoid of merit that they present no federal controversy.

Scott v. Byrd · filed 2025-06-11

Accordingly, Scott’s constitutional claims against O’Melia are so “completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy,” so neither 28 U.S.C. § 1331 nor § 1343 provide jurisdiction.

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

Nguyen v. Chubb Insurance Corporation · filed 2025-06-20

Instead, the wholly insubstantial and frivolous ADA claim does not allow the Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction over this action.

A federal claim supports § 1331 jurisdiction when the court has no reason to treat it as wholly frivolous; calling the claim exaggerated and specious does not suffice to defeat jurisdiction.

Sumrall v. Ali · filed 2025-08-04

This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... But such jurisdictional dismissals are typically reserved for “wholly frivolous federal claim[s].” Lovern, 190 F.3d at 655. Beyond protesting that Sumrall’s § 1981 claim is “exaggerated and specious,” Def. Opp’n PI Mot. at 4, Ali has given the Court no reason to question its legitimacy.

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

Greene v. Simpson · filed 2025-08-25

The bottom line is that the Amended Complaint’s federal claims—to the extent the Greenes intend to assert them—are not merely implausible; they are “so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, [and] plainly unsubstantial.”

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a federal claim unless it is wholly insubstantial and frivolous; a possible failure on the merits does not itself defeat jurisdiction.

Rossetti v. Saban · filed 2023-09-11

Granted, “[a]n alleged claim under § 1331 will be dismissed for want of federal jurisdiction where the claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous and obviously made for the purpose of securing federal jurisdiction.” Preston, 410 F.2d at 236. Such a dismissal is not proper, however, where “the complaint does in fact raise serious questions, both of law and fact, which the district court can decide only after it has assumed jurisdiction over the controversy.” Bell, 327 U.S. at 683–84. Here, Plaintiffs plainly draw their amended complaint to seek recovery under the RICO Act.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint whose allegations are wholly fantastic or delusional.

Bardes · filed 2025-12-15

Plaintiff’s allegations closely resemble those invoked in cases where courts have found subject-matter jurisdiction lacking because the pleadings describe “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” ... This Court therefore lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action and must dismiss it under Rule 12(b)(1).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over nonfrivolous federal claims even when those claims fail on the merits.

Hoover v. Allen · filed 1965-04-22

None of plaintiffs’ claims can properly be denominated “frivolous” within the meaning of Bell v. Hood. This court, therefore, has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and section 27 of the 1934 Act and section 44 of the 1940 Act.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a constitutional claim is asserted solely to obtain jurisdiction.

Vasquez v. City of Reno · filed 1978-12-07

Accordingly, as jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is improper in the case at bar, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the Defendant City of Reno under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and that claim is dismissed with leave to amend as against that Defendant.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or treaties, including treaty-based claims to tribal lands.

Canadian St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians v. New York · filed 2001-05-30

Federal question jurisdiction is available here under § 1331. That section provides district courts with original jurisdiction of “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs’ allegations— that they are successors in interest to the treaty signed by the Indians of the Village of St. Regis, and that their possessory rights and interests have never been extinguished — sufficiently assert a controversy arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States and, thus, present a federal question for this court’s review.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the federal claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

McGee v. Town of Rockland Zoning Board · filed 2012-05-08

Where, as here, a complaint recites a claim ostensibly arising under the United States Constitution, removal is proper unless 1) the federal question “clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” or 2) the federal claim “is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” ... This case presents the uncommon situation in which it is proper to remand a case on the grounds that the claim relied on to support federal jurisdiction is insubstantial and frivolous.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; a wholly insubstantial claim made solely to obtain jurisdiction does not suffice.

Schultz v. Rubick · filed 2025-04-29

A Plaintiff properly invokes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when he “pleads a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States.” ... This claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous and is made solely for the purpose of obtaining federal jurisdiction.

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

Hanson v. Jeff Schmitt Auto Group · filed 2025-05-01

The presence of federal statutes is not necessarily sufficient to induce federal question jurisdiction. If a frivolous claim is included solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction, the case may still be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists for claims under Public Law 91-148 and the Fifth Amendment; a missing amount allegation is harmless where the court judicially notices that more than $10,000 is at stake.

Brown v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency · filed 1973-05-23(a)

The jurisdiction of the Court is predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The case arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, involving the interpretation and application of Public Law 91-148 and of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The file is deficient with respect to an allegation of the jurisdictional amount, but the Court can take judicial notice that the amount in controversy easily exceeds the ,sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, so the pleading deficiency is of no moment.

Under Section 1331's former amount requirement, when requested injunctive relief would not protect a currently violated right, the amount in controversy is measured by damages claimed in good faith rather than the defendant's detriment.

27 Puerto Rican Migrant Farm Workers v. Shade Tobacco Growers Agricultural Ass'n · filed 1973-01-10

Jurisdictional amount, therefore, should be measured by the amount of damages which the plaintiffs may in good faith claim, rather than by the detriment to the defendants of carrying on an activity which has ceased, or the value to the plaintiffs of protecting a right not currently being violated.

First Amendment rights are capable of valuation and therefore are not categorically nonjusticiable under Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement.

Spock v. Bert A. David, Commander, Fort Dix Military Reservation, and Melvin Laird, Secretary of Defense · filed 1972-10-27

We have rejected the contention that first amendment rights are incapable of valuation and hence nonjusticiable in a § 1331 case.

For injunctive relief under former § 1331(a), the jurisdictional amount was measured by the value of the protected right or the injury to be prevented.

Gary B. v. Cronin · filed 1982-03-23(a)

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief; thus, the jurisdictional amount is measured by “the value of the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented.”

Section 1331 has no amount-in-controversy requirement for actions filed on or after December 1, 1980, and supplies jurisdiction over claims arising under federal statutes or the Constitution.

Colbeth v. Wilson · filed 1982-12-14

The Federal Question Jurisdictional Amendments Act of 1980, Pub.L. 96-486, 94 Stat. 2369, effective December 1, 1980, eliminated the amount in controversy requirement for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 5, 1980, and alleges claims arising under the laws (Food Stamp Act and Social Security Act) and Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) of the United States. Accordingly, the Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and pendent jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1331 imposes no monetary threshold for federal-question jurisdiction, so a complaint invoking it need not claim any particular amount.

Thomas v. Yonkers Police Dept. Transportation Unit · filed 1993-04-02

The general federal question jurisdictional statute (28 U.S.C. § 1331) does not now contain any monetary threshold, nor does 42 U.S.C. § 1983 require that any dollar amount be claimed or shown to be due. Except in cases where jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and in cases under specific statutes not involved here, no monetary amount need be claimed for a complaint to proceed.

Section 1331 imposes no minimum amount in controversy for federal-question jurisdiction.

Suss v. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals · filed 1993-05-31

There is no monetary minimum jurisdictional amount under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal question jurisdictional provision, or under the specific civil rights jurisdictional provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

Section 1331 imposes no minimum amount in controversy for federal-question jurisdiction.

Chief Probation Officers of California v. Shalala · filed 1997-07-08

It is also beside the point because, in the absence of factors that will render this issue more fit for judicial review in the future, federal courts are not divested of federal question jurisdiction simply because the amount of money at stake is not large.

Section 1331 does not require a minimum amount in controversy for federal-question jurisdiction.

Mattei v. Mattei · filed 1997-12-18

ERISA does not impose a required minimum amount in controversy, nor does 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal question jurisdictional statute.

Section 1331 imposes no $50,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for federal-question jurisdiction.

Herman v. Johnson · filed 1999-06-08

Johnson renews his argument that the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the Secretary’s lawsuit because the amount in controversy was less than $50,000. This argument is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 29 U.S.C. § 666(1).

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law without requiring a minimum amount in controversy.

Stipelcovich v. Directv, Inc. · filed 2001-01-09

Neither that statute nor 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides district courts with original federal question jurisdiction in cases generally arising under federal laws of the United States, require a minimum amount in controversy for removal to federal district court under the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Section 1331 imposes no amount-in-controversy requirement for federal-question jurisdiction over litigation under § 1983.

Johnson, Robert A. v. City of Evanston · filed 2001-05-11

The court added that the amount in controversy is less than $75,000 so that federal jurisdiction is lacking--though there is no amount-in-controversy requirement for litigation under sec.1983 (see 28 U.S.C. secs. 1331, 1343(a)(3)) and Johnson did not seek to invoke the diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 imposes no amount-in-controversy requirement on a federal-question suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Johnson v. City of Evanston, Illinois · filed 2001-05-11

The court added that the amount in controversy is less than $75,000 so that federal jurisdiction is lacking — though there is no amount-in-controversy requirement for litigation under § 1983 (see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3)) and Johnson did not seek to invoke the diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 has no minimum amount in controversy for federal-question jurisdiction.

Muoneke v. Compagnie Nationale Air France · filed 2007-09-17

Muoneke’s action, however, involves interpretation and application of a treaty, the Warsaw Convention. Needless to say, no dollar- amount requirement exists for such federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331’s former amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied by an equitable claim for commercial fishing rights exceeding the statutory minimum.

Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Ohio Department of Natural Resources · filed 2008-03-31

Although this statute provided Indian nations new access to federal court to assert treaty rights, Plaintiff claims the amount in controversy requirement ($500), which was maintained as part of the statute until 1980, prohibited its claim of treaty rights. This assertion is unreasonable. Plaintiffs desire to engage in commercial fishing on Lake Erie, although equitable in nature, clearly involves a controversy far exceeding this amount.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a RICO claim without a $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.

Bloodstock Research Information Services, Inc. v. Edbain.Com, LLC · filed 2009-04-07

Johnson argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this claim because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. Johnson misunderstands this Court’s jurisdiction over such claims. Bloodstock’s RICO claims are properly before the Court under its federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 18 U.S.C. § 1962. The breach of contract claim is also properly before the Court under its supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The amount in controversy is an issue under diversity jurisdiction, which is not the basis for jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction has no amount-in-controversy requirement.

California Sun Tanning USA, Inc. v. Electric Beach, Inc. · filed 2010-03-11

Because federal-question and federal trademark jurisdiction — which carry no amount-in-controversy requirement, ... — properly underlay the District Court’s exercise of subject-matter jurisdiction, the amount actually in controversy here is irrelevant.

Section 1331 provides original jurisdiction over constitutional claims regardless of the amount in controversy.

Harris v. Wooden · filed 2011-09-09

Even if the amount in controversy is below $75,000, thus divesting this court of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the amount in controversy is irrelevant to plaintiffs claims alleging violations of her constitutional rights vesting this court with original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction over Lanham Act claims without requiring the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000.

Cfa Institute v. Andre · filed 2014-11-25

While the defendant challenges the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the diversity jurisdiction statute which requires the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000, the instant suit is brought pursuant to the Federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., which is a “law[] . . . of the United States,” over which “[t]he district courts . . . have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 has no amount-in-controversy requirement.

quizinsight.com Partnership v. Tabak · filed 2019-09-04

The amount-in-controversy requirement applies only when a plaintiff seeks to invoke diversity jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have federal-question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 imposes no minimum amount in controversy for federal-question jurisdiction.

Murray v. Marriott International Inc. · filed 2020-02-07

Thus, the fact that Plaintiff seeks $6,000 does not strip this court of jurisdiction over an action brought under the ADA.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction without an amount-in-controversy requirement.

Bailey v. Pritzker · filed 2020-06-29

Rather, it is redundant now that Section 1331 confers jurisdiction without respect to the amount in controversy, negating the need for “many of the specific grants of jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over § 1983 claims without requiring a plaintiff to plead a specific amount of damages.

Borders v. Wine · filed 2021-09-29

Borders’ complaint asserts a § 1983 claim, which invokes the court’s federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. So Borders does not need to plead a specific amount of damages.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law regardless of the amount in controversy.

Rebollar v. DBC Food LLC 2 · filed 2021-10-19

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have original jurisdiction over claims arising under the laws of the United States, regardless of the amount in controversy.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over § 1983 claims without requiring a specific damages amount to invoke jurisdiction.

MANDER v. HOUTZDALE · filed 2024-06-25

Since this Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, there is no basis for Plaintiff’s request. The Motion for Relief is properly denied.

Section 1331 has no amount-in-controversy requirement, but it does not bypass the MMWA’s $50,000 jurisdictional threshold.

Martinez v. LHM QCJ, LLC · filed 2024-07-01

While this statement is true as far as it goes, it does not apply to the situation at hand because Defendants are not asking to “clarify” the basis for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 because § 1331 requires no showing of amount in controversy. Instead, Defendants are seeking to assert a different basis of federal jurisdiction, the MMWA, which does require them to allege satisfaction of a $50,000 jurisdictional amount.

Section 1331 has no amount-in-controversy requirement, so the availability of particular damages does not affect federal-question jurisdiction.

Roadget Business Pte. Ltd. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporat · filed 2024-07-09

Fourth, this is a federal question case, with no amount in controversy requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Therefore, Roadget’s ability to recover certain categories of damages does not implicate this Court’s jurisdiction, as it would if this was a diversity of citizenship case.

Federal-question jurisdiction does not require a plaintiff to satisfy an amount-in-controversy threshold.

Lewis v. Kraemer · filed 2025-03-19

Plaintiff then points to the lack of medical bills or other tangible damages as being insufficient to satisfy the amount in controversy — which of course is wholly irrelevant to federal question jurisdiction. Compare 28 U.S.C. § 1331 with 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when a complaint invokes a federal question on its face, without a $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.

Jamison-Dey v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. · filed 2025-07-08

That requirement, however, applies to diversity jurisdiction—not federal-question jurisdiction. And because Jamison-Dey’s complaint on its face invokes a federal question regarding the TILA, federal jurisdiction is proper, and removal was appropriate.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a pleaded Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim even when the complaint does not clarify the amount in controversy.

Soto v. General Motors LLC · filed 2025-11-06

Plaintiff’s complaint asserts a federal MMWA claim, which provides a basis for federal-question jurisdiction apparent from the face of the pleading, notwithstanding the lack of allegations clarifying the amount the claim places in controversy.

Section 1331’s jurisdictional amount requirement does not limit jurisdiction under § 1343(3).

Parker v. Mandel · filed 1972-06-14

Since the arguments were heard in this case, the Supreme Court has ruled that the jurisdictional amount requirement of § 1331 does not limit the grant of jurisdiction under § 1343(3) and that the latter section provides jurisdiction in cases involving property as well as personal rights. Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 92 S.Ct. 1113, 31 L.Ed.2d 424 (1972). As in that case, jurisdiction here is not defeated because of the absence of an allegation of the jurisdictional amount in controversy.

Section 1331 requires no jurisdictional amount for a federal-question action seeking nonmonetary relief against the United States for unlawful official action.

Application of JW Schonfeld, Ltd. · filed 1978-08-18(a)

Moreover, Congress only recently abolished the defense of sovereign immunity and requirements of jurisdictional amounts in any action seeking relief other than money damages from the United States and stating a claim based on the assertion of unlawful official action by an agency or by its officers or employees. 5 U.S.C. § 702; 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law without an amount-in-controversy requirement.

Groeneweg · filed 2026-04-07

Federal question jurisdiction only requires that the case arise under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It imposes no amount in controversy requirement.

Section 1331 imposes no amount-in-controversy requirement for federal-question jurisdiction.

Groeneweg · filed 2026-04-07

Groeneweg makes much to do about the low amount in controversy; however, because Citibank removed to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction, the alleged amount in controversy is irrelevant, as federal question jurisdiction includes no controversy requirement.

Section 1331 has no amount-in-controversy requirement for federal-question jurisdiction.

Leeeric Tyrone Bess Bey v. M M J Storage L L C · filed 2026-05-04

To clarify, there is no amount-in-controversy requirement for the Court to have federal question subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 no longer requires a minimum amount in controversy for federal-question jurisdiction.

Ciampa v. Schweiker · filed 1981-04-14(a)

The parties’ dispute concerning the jurisdictional amount has been mooted by the recent abolition of the jurisdictional amount requirement.

Section 1331 does not require more than $10,000 in controversy for a suit against a federal officer in an official capacity.

Beller v. Middendorf · filed 1980-11-21

Therefore, it is not essential to the district court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 that the amount in controversy exceed $10,000.

Section 1331 required a plaintiff to meet a $10,000 amount in controversy requirement.

United States of America v. City of Chicago · filed 1977-01-11(a)

Section 1331, however, unlike section 1343, requires the plaintiff to meet a $10,000 amount in controversy requirement.

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction over a reverse FOIA action arising under FOIA when the applicable amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.

Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. General Services Administration · filed 1977-04-01(a)

The jurisdictional basis for this suit is to be found in 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... Given this premise, we are confident that the $10,000 requirement of the prior law has been satisfied in this case because of the high value which Sears places on the documents at issue in this case.

Section 1331 requires a federal question but has no amount in controversy requirement.

Kellyman v. Columbia Debt Recovery LLC · filed 2025-09-10

There is no amount in controversy requirement, only that a federal question be ... presented.