28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331(a) requires no jurisdictional amount for a Fifth Amendment action against the United States, its agencies, and federal officials in their official capacities.

Hinsdale Livestock Co. v. United States · filed 1980-10-03(a)

Plaintiffs have invoked jurisdiction based on the existence of a federal question and couch this action under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution; the Court finds jurisdiction herein by virtue of 28 U.S.C., Section 1331(a), and the Court finds this is an action against the United States, agencies thereof and officers and employees thereof in their official capacity, so that no jurisdictional amount is required under said section.

Section 1331(a) gives district courts jurisdiction without an amount-in-controversy requirement over federal-law suits against a federal department secretary.

Schweiker v. Panthers · filed 1981-06-25(a)

Because this is a suit against the Secretary, the District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (a) without regard to the amount in controversy.

After the 1980 amendment eliminated Section 1331’s $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement, a federal constitutional and statutory Medicaid challenge no longer needs to allege that amount.

Philadelphia Welfare Rights Organization v. O'Bannon · filed 1981-06-30

On December 1, 1980, the Congress amended section 1331 to eliminate the $10,-000 amount in controversy requirement. Since there is now no damage requirement, jurisdiction exists under section 1331.

The 1980 Federal Question Jurisdictional Amendments apply to actions pending on December 1, 1980 and remove Section 1331’s amount-in-controversy requirement.

Commonwealth v. Porter · filed 1981-07-30

If the Commonwealth is an appropriate plaintiff, there is subject matter jurisdiction in the district court, without regard to jurisdictional amount, under Federal Question Jurisdictional Amendments ... since that statute applies to any civil action pending on December 1, 1980.

The 1980 amendment eliminated Section 1331's amount-in-controversy requirement, including the amount limitation referenced by the Consumer Product Safety Act's private-action provision.

Butcher v. Robertshaw Controls Co. · filed 1981-07-31

Accordingly, defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction will be denied, the court finding that it has federal question jurisdiction over the cause of action brought under the CPSA ... . Though not particularly important in this case, it should be noted that the reference in 15 U.S.C. § 2072(a) to the jurisdictional minimum of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 has been effectively repealed by the Federal Question Jurisdictional Amendments Act of 1980, Pub.L. 96-486, 94 Stat. 2369, which has eliminated, effective December 1, 1980, the amount in controversy requirement for federal question jurisdiction.

The 1980 amendment to Section 1331 applies to actions pending on December 1, 1980 and supplies jurisdiction without an amount-in-controversy requirement.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Porter · filed 1981-08-05

If the Commonwealth is an appropriate plaintiff, there is subject matter jurisdiction in the district court, without regard to jurisdictional amount, under Federal Question Jurisdictional Amendments, Act of Dec. 1, 1980, Pub.L. 96-486, § 2(a)(b), 94 Stat. 2369, amending, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, since that statute applies to any civil action pending on December 1, 1980.

Under Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement, a constitutional claim for injunctive relief did not establish jurisdiction when the plaintiff neither alleged nor proved more than $10,000 in monetizable harm.

Kucinich v. Forbes · filed 1977-02-10

However for this Court to entertain a case pursuant to § 1331 the plaintiff must allege and prove in excess of $10,000 damages. ... Therefore the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction in this case under § 1331 because the $10,000 amount requirement has not been established.

A constitutional claim against municipalities lacks Section 1331 jurisdiction when the plaintiffs neither assert Section 1331 nor allege the former jurisdictional amount.

Cullen v. NEW YORK STATE CIVIL SERV. COMN. · filed 1977-07-29

The plaintiffs have failed to assert a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and to allege a jurisdictional amount, which precludes a jurisdictional basis under § 1331 for the injunctive portion of the claim against the Town of Hempstead and the County of Nassau, ... and possibly the monetary claims for relief.

The 1976 amendment removing Section 1331(a)'s amount-in-controversy requirement for actions against the United States and its agencies or officials applies retroactively to pending cases.

Green v. Philbrook · filed 1977-02-24(a)

However, effective October 21, 1976, Congress amended federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), by deleting the $10,000 amount in controversy requirement where the action is brought against the United States, its agencies, or any officer or employee thereof acting in his official capacity. ... Thus, we think it proper to apply the amendment retroactively to grant jurisdiction over the defendant Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare even if there was no jurisdiction initially.

The 1976 amendment to Section 1331(a) eliminates any jurisdictional-amount requirement for actions against the United States, its agencies, or its officers and employees acting officially.

Francis v. Cleland · filed 1977-06-25(a)

Although plaintiffs allege damages in excess of $10,000.00, we make no finding as to the monetary amount in dispute. We deem it sufficient to note that 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) as amended by Public Law 94-574, section 2, provides that no jurisdictional amount is necessary in any action predicated on § 1331 and brought “against the United States, any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof in his official capacity.”

Before the 1976 amendment, Section 1331(a) did not support an action against a federal officer when the plaintiff neither claimed nor showed more than $10,000 in controversy.

Acosta v. Gaffney · filed 1977-07-06(a)

It is true that section 1331 also required, at the time this suit was brought, a showing of a jurisdictional amount in controversy in excess of $10,000 in an action such as this against a government officer and no such jurisdictional amount has been claimed or shown in this case. ... Accordingly, section 1331, itself, does not support jurisdiction here.

Section 1331(a)’s 1976 amendment allows constitutional and statutory claims against a federal officer in an official capacity without satisfying the historical $10,000 amount requirement.

Drumright v. Padzieski · filed 1977-08-22(a)

Thus, it appears, as to the federal defendant, the inability of the individual plaintiffs to demonstrate the requisite $10,000 claim is irrelevant. The Secretary may be sued in his official capacity for both Constitutional and statutory violations without regard to the amount in controversy.

The 1976 amendment to Section 1331 eliminated the $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for an action against federal defendants.

King v. Andrus · filed 1977-12-30

It appears that plaintiff is correct in his contention that the jurisdictional issue has been resolved in his favor by the Act of Congress (Public Law 94-574, 90 Stat. 2721) amending 28 U.S.C. § 1331 which eliminates the required showing of a value of $10,000 of the matter of controversy.

The Federal Question Jurisdictional Amendments Act of 1980 eliminated Section 1331’s amount-in-controversy requirement.

Lykins v. Aluminum Workers International Union · filed 1980-12-19

Part I of the Memorandum dated December 19,1980, is stricken in its entirety to reflect the elimination of the amount in controversy requirement from 28 U.S.C. § 1331 by the Federal Question Jurisdictional Amendments Act of 1980, P.L.No.98-486, approved by the President on December 1, 1980.

Under Section 1331(a)'s former jurisdictional threshold, a constitutional claim supports federal jurisdiction when the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.

South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. LeResche · filed 1981-01-05(a)

As the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $10,000, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Under the former Section 1331(a), constitutional questions involving more than $10,000 satisfy federal-question jurisdiction.

Underhill Associates, Inc. v. Coleman · filed 1981-01-08(a)

There being constitutional questions at issue, and more than $10,000 in controversy, the Court’s jurisdiction vests pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

The 1980 amendment to Section 1331 eliminated the amount-in-controversy requirement and expressly applied that elimination to actions pending when the amendment became law.

Morabito v. Blum · filed 1981-11-25

Subsequent to the filing of defendant Blum’s motion, the Federal Question Jurisdictional Amendments Act of 1980, Pub.L.No. 96-486, 94 Stat. 2369 (1980), was enacted into law. This statute eliminated the amount-in-controversy requirement from 28 U.S.C. § 1331, rendering the statutory aspect of defendant Blum’s subject-matter-jurisdiction argument merit-less. ... The Court notes that section 4 of this act expressly makes the elimination of the $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement applicable. to actions, such as this one, that were pending when the act became law.

Section 1331 has required no amount in controversy since 1976 for federal-question suits against the government and since 1980 for all other federal-question suits.

Angleton v. Pierce · filed 1983-08-30

An additional argument made by Associates, that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs have not alleged $10,000 in controversy, is meritless. The $10,000 jurisdictional requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was repealed in 1976 (for federal question cases against the government) and in 1980 (for all other federal question cases).

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction does not depend on an amount in controversy.

Leach v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. · filed 1986-11-26

However, § 1331 provides for federal question jurisdiction, which is not dependent on the amount in controversy.

After elimination of its amount-in-controversy requirement, Section 1331 directly covers federal statutory claims without requiring plaintiffs to plead a constitutional claim under Section 1983 and rely on pendent jurisdiction.

Moore v. Perales · filed 1988-06-29

As there is no longer a jurisdictional amount required of such claims, plaintiffs, who cannot plead such amount, no longer need allege a “non-frivolous” claim for violation of a constitutional right under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, establish jurisdiction over that claim on 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and then bring their statutory claim on the principle of pendent jurisdiction.

Congress’s 1980 amendment to Section 1331 eliminated the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement for federal-question actions.

Norton v. Cobb · filed 1990-08-15

Despite the jurisdictional allegations that the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000—Com-plaint at ¶ 3—the statutory amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in 1980 abolished, for federal questions, the minimal jurisdictional amount.

Section 1331 has imposed no amount-in-controversy requirement since Congress eliminated that requirement in 1980.

Behunin Ex Rel. Nesladek v. Jefferson County Department of Social Services · filed 1990-09-06

The applicable statute declares that: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Ten years have passed since Congress amended § 1331 to eliminate the amount in controversy requirement. Pub.L. No. 96-486, 94 Stat. 2369 (1980). This ground for the defendants’ motion to dismiss is frivolous.

The 1980 amendment eliminating Section 1331’s amount-in-controversy requirement applies to an action still pending when enacted, including one in which only attorney fees remain unresolved.

Cleary v. Blum · filed 1981-01-21

As amended, § 1331 no longer imposes an amount in controversy requirement on cases arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. ... The Act applies to all actions pending on the date of the enactment of the Act. ... I hold that the instant action is still pending even though the only remaining issue is that of attorneys’ fees. ... As a result, the court has jurisdiction of this action.

The 1980 amendment to Section 1331 eliminates the amount-in-controversy requirement for federal-question cases against all defendants.

Ellis v. Blum · filed 1981-02-18

While the case was under advisement, Congress passed and the President signed the Federal Question Jurisdictional Amendments Act of 1980, 94 Stat. 2369, abolishing the amount-in-controversy requirement in federal question cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), with respect to all defendants.

After the 1980 amendment removed Section 1331’s amount threshold, Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a Section 1983 claim without requiring more than $10,000 in controversy.

Dulany v. Board of School Commissioners · filed 1981-03-26

The Court has jurisdiction over the section 1983 claim by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... (striking out $10,000.00 amount-in-controversy).

Under Section 1331's former requirements, jurisdiction exists over a claim under federal law when more than $10,000 is in controversy.

Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. v. Cochran · filed 1981-06-10

This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, since the case clearly arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.

The December 1, 1980 amendment to Section 1331 eliminated the $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.

SED, INC. v. City of Dayton · filed 1981-06-11

The parties have failed to note that section 1331 was amended on December 1, 1980, to delete the requirement of a $10,000 minimum amount in controversy for jurisdiction under that section.

The 1980 amendment to Section 1331 eliminated the amount-in-controversy requirement and applied to civil actions pending on its December 1, 1980 effective date.

Chaffin v. Taylor · filed 1981-09-16

Effective December 1, 1980, Congress amended the federal-question jurisdiction statute to eliminate the requirement of an amount in controversy. Pub.L. 96-486, 94 Stat. 2369 (Dec. 1, 1980). Section four of the law provided that its provisions would apply to any civil action pending on the date of enactment. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction of this cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976).

The 1980 amendment eliminating Section 1331's jurisdictional amount applies immediately to pending civil actions, including cases pending on remand.

Katherine Amen, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. City of Dearborn, a Municipal Corporation, Defendants-Appellant · filed 1983-10-06

We find these claims to be without merit and hold that the district court properly found jurisdiction over the City under the amended version of § 1331. ... Section 4 of the Act provides that the Act “shall apply to any civil action pending on the date of enactment of this Act.” It is evident that the issue of jurisdiction under § 1331 was “pending” on the effective date of the Act since it was under further consideration pursuant to this court’s mandate.

The 1980 elimination of Section 1331's amount-in-controversy requirement applies to a case pending when the amendment took effect.

Sandefur v. Cherry · filed 1983-10-13

While this case was pending, Congress amended § 1331 to eliminate the $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement. ... Absent manifest injustice, we apply the law in effect at the time we render our decision.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under treaties of the United States.

Hardy v. Scandinavian Airlines System · filed 2025-02-07

Thus, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case as a civil action arising under a treaty of the United States.

Section 1331 permits a court to retain federal-question jurisdiction over agency issues excluded from the CISG.

Chilean Sea Bass Inc. v. Kendell Seafood Imports, Inc. · filed 2024-05-22

Agency issues are excluded from the CISG, but the Court retains federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction over a Hague Convention child-abduction claim when the Convention does not apply between the countries involved.

Taveras v. Taveras · filed 2005-11-03

Section 1331 does not alter this calculus and provide this Court with a jurisdictional basis.

Section 1331 reaches claims arising under treaties, but a non-self-executing treaty does not itself supply a claim arising under the treaty.

Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp. · filed 1998-11-13

Although federal question jurisdiction includes claims arising under treaties, the Berne Convention is not self-executing. In consequence, Bridgeman has no claim arising under the Convention within the meaning of Section 1331.

Section 1331 treaty jurisdiction requires the treaty provisions at issue to create a private right of action.

Hyosung (America), Inc. v. Japan Air Lines Co., Ltd. · filed 1985-10-23

The articles of the Convention which give rise to a cause of action for damages have not been amended by the Hague Protocol and thus are included in the agreement between the United States and Korea, thereby satisfying the requirement of § 1331 that a treaty must provide private right of action before jurisdiction attaches.

Section 1331 does not create a treaty-based cause of action, but it authorizes a district court to determine whether a well-pleaded, colorable treaty claim states a cause of action.

Dreyfus v. August Von Finck and Merck, Finck & Co. · filed 1976-04-06

While these provisions do not create a cause of action for a plaintiff seeking recovery under a treaty, they do give the District Court power to determine whether, in a well pleaded complaint, a cause of action exists.

A civil action arises under a United States treaty for Section 1331 only when the treaty expressly or impliedly creates a private right of action and is self-executing by prescribing rules that determine private rights.

Columbia Marine Services, Inc., Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated v. Reffet Limited, a United · filed 1988-11-02

Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under ... treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. An action arises under a treaty only when the treaty expressly or by implication provides for a private right of action. The treaty must be self-executing; ... it must “prescribe[] rules by which private rights may be determined.”

A private individual can assert a treaty claim arising under Section 1331 only when the treaty clause confers an enforceable private right.

Committee of United States Citizens Living in Nicaragua v. Ronald Wilson Reagan, President of the United States · filed 1988-12-16

Treaty clauses must confer such rights in order for individuals to assert a claim “arising under” them.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over international air transportation claims governed exclusively by the Warsaw Convention, even when the complaint pleads state tort claims.

Garcia v. Aerovias De Mexico, SA · filed 1995-02-01

United States Code Section 1331 provides that "[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." ... Instead, the Warsaw Convention preempts state law claims and provides an exclusive federal cause of action and remedy for cases involving international air transportation. It is accordingly ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff's motion to remand to state court is DENIED.

Section 1331 supplies original jurisdiction when a RCRA claim arises under federal law; dismissal of that federal claim leaves no federal-question basis for original jurisdiction.

PaineWebber Income Properties Three Ltd. Partnership Ex Rel. Third Income Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corp. · filed 1995-06-23

The Court was given original jurisdiction of these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the RCRA claims arose “under the Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States.” ... As jurisdiction in this case is based on a federal issue, RCRA and the dismissal of Count I disposes of all federal claims before the Court, this Court no longer has original jurisdiction over this action and may decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction over a Warsaw Convention claim because the treaty supplies an exclusive remedy.

Welch v. American Airlines, Inc. · filed 1997-06-30

Accordingly, this Court also adopts the reasoning and conclusion that because the Warsaw Convention provides the exclusive remedy for plaintiffs in this case the treaty also confers section 1331 jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law tort claims merely because a treaty must be consulted to establish the plaintiffs' right to sue in state court.

De Perez v. AT&T Co. · filed 1998-04-29

We conclude that the need to look to the treaty to satisfy the Georgia code provision does not present a federal question substantial enough to place the plaintiffs' state law tort actions within the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over a pleaded federal RICO claim.

Tannenbaum v. Brink · filed 2000-11-07

However, Plaintiffs have also pleaded a federal RICO claim, which is sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction over that claim and to allow us to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining common law fraud claim.

Section 1331 requires identifying the federal law under which a claim arises; when §1983 cannot support a tribal claim, the court must consider whether federal common law supplies that basis.

Inyo County, California v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony · filed 2003-05-19

But the Tribe has not explained, and neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals appears to have carefully considered, what prescription of federal common law enables a tribe to maintain an action for declaratory and injunctive relief establishing its sovereign right to be free from state criminal processes. In short, absent §1983 as a foundation for the Tribe's action, it is unclear what federal law, if any, the Tribe's case "aris[es] under." 28 U. S. C. §1331. We therefore remand for focused consideration and resolution of that jurisdictional question.

Section 1331 requires a claim based on federal law; it does not independently confer jurisdiction without one.

Gem County Mosquito Abatement District v. Environmental Protection Agency · filed 2005-01-04

Section 1331 does not independently or separately confer jurisdiction. Rather, the Plaintiffs must identify a statute or law of the United States on which their claims are based.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under a treaty unless the asserted federal claim is plainly insubstantial.

Jogi, Tejpaul v. Voges, Tim · filed 2007-03-12

As everyone, including the United States, ac- knowledges, the assertion of a claim arising under any one of those sources of federal law is enough to support subject matter jurisdiction unless the claim is so plainly insubstantial that it does not engage the court’s power.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a challenge to a discretionary immigration decision when the APA is the asserted predicate and the INA governs the dispute.

Ngassam v. Chertoff · filed 2008-01-17

While her reply memorandum (p. 9 n.2) states that “Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Question Jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, with the APA serving as the predicate federal statute that implicates jurisdiction”, that is insufficient. ... Thus, the APA does not provide a “federal question” basis for jurisdiction for this court to review USCIS’s denial of plaintiffs petitions.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under a U.S. treaty, including Hague Child Abduction Convention claims.

Viteri v. Pflucker · filed 2008-05-06

Petitioner’s claims arise under the Convention, and thus, both 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 11603(a) give this court subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate petitioner’s claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a suit exclusively between private parties when the claimed federal preemption is only an anticipated defense to a state-law claim.

New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway Co. v. Barrois · filed 2008-06-25

Because the Railroad sought relief exclusively against private parties and because the Railroad’s preemption claim arises as an anticipated or potential federal defense, the Railroad’s argument that federal jurisdiction is established under Shaw fails.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a federal claim apparent from the complaint even when the complaint invokes only diversity jurisdiction.

Jackson v. ASA Holdings, LLC · filed 2010-11-08

Jackson’s Complaint only asserts jurisdiction under § 1332. However, it is clear that Count III of the Complaint asserts a federal cause of action for violation of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692d. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction over the federal claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s federal counterclaims cannot supply federal question jurisdiction.

SD-3C, LLC v. Barun Electronics Co., Ltd. · filed 2019-09-16

First, it is black letter law that counterclaims cannot provide the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction when a complaint asserts claims arising under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Maqablh v. Carter · filed 2020-12-10

Al Maqablh’s Complaint gave this Court original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because it contained claims arising under the United States Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a treaty that gives the plaintiff no privately enforceable claim.

Galvez v. Fanjul Corp. · filed 2021-04-12

Here, Plaintiffs do not have a privately enforceable claim under the ICCPR or the American Convention on Human Rights. ... Accordingly, these documents cannot serve as a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim based on federal law independent of the jurisdictional statute itself.

(PS) Reedy v. State of California · filed 2021-04-14

In order to invoke federal jurisdiction under section 1331, a plaintiff’s claim must be based on a federal law independent of that statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a private plaintiff relies on federal criminal statutes that only prosecutors may enforce.

Ferguson v. Goff · filed 2021-09-02

In the present case, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Thus, Plaintiff cannot establish subject-matter jurisdiction by citing to these criminal statutes.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for removal based solely on an ordinary federal preemption defense.

Independent Service Provider, LLC v. Cain · filed 2021-10-26

Defendants’ ordinary preemption defense cannot provide the grounds for removal.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over a civil action asserting an ADA discrimination claim.

Chen v. Salt River Project · filed 2021-12-17

Plaintiff asserts discrimination claims under the ADA—a federal law—which provides the Court with federal question judication in this matter.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a claim based solely on alleged breaches of duties under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Daker v. Alston & Bird LLP · filed 2022-04-26

To the extent Daker intends to challenge, on appeal, the dis- trict court’s finding that federal-question jurisdiction was lacking because he alleged a breach of fiduciary duties under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any such challenge would lack merit as a matter of law.

Section 1331 requires a federal-law basis for federal-question jurisdiction; a claim arising under state negligence law does not establish one.

Bradford v. Jackson Service Station · filed 2022-06-14

Plaintiff’s Complaint invokes federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331. Compl. at 3. However, Plaintiff has not identified any federal law as the basis for jurisdiction under that statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based solely on state statutes.

Carter v. University of Washington School of Dentistry · filed 2022-08-22

Both RCW 9.91.010 and RCW 49.06.050 are Washington state statutes and cannot serve as a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (giving federal courts jurisdiction over cases “arising under” federal law).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s allegations show that a treaty governs the claim.

Dongguan Jianqun Shoes Company, LTD v. Consolidated Shoe Company, Inc. · filed 2022-09-29

As such, it appears that, based on the facts alleged in the Complaint, the CSIG governs, and there is thus federal question jurisdiction as to Defendant Trade Winds Importing, LLC and Plaintiff.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction to identify the federal law under which the claim arises.

Brundage v. Johnson · filed 2022-11-16

But Plaintiff fails to provide any federal law under which his claim arises. Even liberally construing his complaint, it is unclear to the Court what federal laws are implicated to establish subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; a venue provision alone does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Manganello v. Haynes · filed 2023-01-04

Venue is a procedural mechanism, not a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff asserts claims under federal law.

Toby v. Gennette · filed 2023-07-10

Accordingly, the court finds exercise of jurisdiction proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 where Toby asserts federal claims.

Section 1331's federal-question jurisdiction cannot be based on a counterclaim.

McMackin v. Campbell · filed 2023-07-11

But “a counterclaim . . . cannot serve as the basis for [federal question jurisdiction].”

Section 1331 requires a federal-law basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Berisha v. The Grove Hotel · filed 2023-07-31

This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and as such, can only hear cases and controversies that involve a federal question (28 U.S.C. § 1331) or satisfy federal diversity jurisdiction requirements (28 U.S.C. § 1332). Here, Berisha has failed to establish jurisdiction through federal question by failing to provide any federal law under which she could potentially recover.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the pleaded First Amendment § 1983 claim against private actors is not viable.

Anderson v. National Acrylics · filed 2023-08-22

To start, federal question jurisdiction is lacking because Plaintiff does not allege a viable claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... Consequently, Plaintiff’s First Amendment § 1983 claim against Defendants does not provide a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a FEHBA reimbursement dispute when federal common law does not govern it.

Ray v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association · filed 2023-10-29

But as discussed, there is no federal question jurisdiction, which means no separate basis for removal.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over an action whose complaint asserts federal constitutional claims, even when it also includes state-law claims.

Sawyers v. McMahon · filed 2023-12-21

This Court has federal question jurisdiction over this action on the basis of the complaint’s federal constitutional claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over a complaint alleging a federal RICO claim.

Taveras v. US Bank National Association · filed 2023-12-29

But his complaint alleged that U.S. Bank and Ocwen violated the federal RICO statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961. That federal claim gave the district court original subject matter jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the case was therefore removable, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), (c) (providing that generally “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . to the district court,” and this includes civil actions that contain both federal and state law claims).

Section 1331 requires a federal basis for the plaintiff’s claim to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Allen v. Clark · filed 2024-01-18

Plaintiff asserts that this court has jurisdiction because his claims are based on federal law; however, Plaintiff has failed to identify the federal basis for his claim and this court lacks jurisdiction over any challenge to decisions by the BOTA.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify a federal statutory or constitutional basis for its claims to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Brown v. Case C-23-370497-1 · filed 2024-03-11

Fourth, because Plaintiff does not identify any federal statute or Constitutional amendment under which her claims arise, Plaintiff does not provide a basis for jurisdiction under the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on an executive order that expressly disclaims a private right of action.

Lopez v. First Merchants Corporation · filed 2024-05-10

Thus, Plaintiffs may not rely on Executive Order 13,818 to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a civil case based solely on 18 U.S.C. § 242, a criminal statute.

BEY v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2024-05-16

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed and her application for a TRO is denied for the same reason as the dismissal of the original Complaint. Plaintiff continues to rely on criminal statute 18 U.S.C. § 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color Of Law as a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over a civil case. As previously explained (ECF No. 3 at 4 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1331)), this Court’s jurisdiction with respect to federal questions is limited to “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” (Id.)

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a RICO claim because federal law creates the cause of action.

ALTISOURCE S.A.R.L v. SZUMANSKI · filed 2024-05-31

However, as Judge Thompson already held, subject matter jurisdiction is proper over Plaintiffs’ RICO claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a), and the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Therefore, Remedios’s Motion to Dismiss on this ground is denied.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a civil claim based on criminal statutes that create no private cause of action.

Borne v. Home Bank, N.A. · filed 2024-06-21

Because 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1341, and 1343 do not create private causes of action, Borne may not rely on these statutes as a basis to gain access to the federal courts in a civil case.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify a federal basis for its claim; checking the federal-question box alone does not establish jurisdiction.

Tippy, Jr. v. Alpha Plexes LLC · filed 2024-07-26

Plaintiff invokes this type of jurisdiction because he marks the box for federal question jurisdiction on his complaint form. However, Plaintiff has not identified any federal law forming the basis for his claim.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff pleads federal claims.

KODENKANDETH v. BLIND & VISION REHABILITATION OF PITTSBURGH · filed 2024-09-19

As Defendants point out, removal was in accordance with federal statutes governing removal, see E&H Mot. Stay Resp. (Doc. 20) at 5–8; BVRS Mot. to Stay Resp. (Doc. 21) at 7–8; Highmark Mot. Stay Resp. (Doc. 24) at 5–6; E&H Mot. Remand Resp. (Doc. 25) at 3–5; BVRS Mot. Remand Resp. (Doc. 27) at 8–14; Highmark Mot. Remand Resp. (Doc. 26) at 5–6; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, 1446 (requiring a timely filed notice of removal and defendants’ consent), and for these same reasons, the Court finds Defendants have carried their burden in establishing that the case was properly removed, Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co., 977 F.2d 848, 852 (3d Cir. 1992), given federal question jurisdiction existed as Mr. Kodenkandeth pleaded a number of federal claims against Defendants, E&H Mot. Remand Resp. (Doc. 25) at 3–5; BVRS Mot. Remand Resp. (Doc. 27) at 8–14; Highmark Mot. Remand Resp. (Doc. 26) at 5–6.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions asserting federal claims, including Title VII and § 1981 claims.

George v. Groome Transportation · filed 2024-09-25

In its notice of removal, Groome properly cites as the basis for federal jurisdiction in this case 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... These claims alone confer subject matter jurisdiction upon this federal court.

Section 1331 gives a federal court subject-matter jurisdiction when the plaintiff states a claim under the Fair Housing Act.

Johnson v. FirstKey Homes LLC · filed 2025-01-30

Because, as discussed below, Johnson has stated a claim under the FHA, this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not allow a federal counterclaim to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. KCH Transportation, Inc. · filed 2025-03-26

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over claims arising under the laws of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A counterclaim, however, “cannot serve as the basis for ‘arising under’ jurisdiction.” ... Thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this entire matter.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; citing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not itself establish one.

Warren v. Warren (Cochrane) · filed 2025-04-11

The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure govern litigation in federal court, they do not raise a federal question or an independently enforceable right.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a viable ADA claim even if a separate § 1983 claim may fail.

A.F. v. St. Tammany Parish School Board · filed 2025-04-28

Although the viability of the § 1983 claims is tenuous, as explained above, the Court now confirms that Plaintiffs have a viable ADA claim. Because the ADA is a federal statute, the Court’s federal question jurisdiction is therefore secure. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based solely on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

YEW v. ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2025-07-03

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not fall within Section 1331 because they are not federal laws or treatises.

Section 1331 requires a civil claim; a claim based on a federal criminal statute alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Gulli v. Leavitt · filed 2025-07-15

To invoke federal question jurisdiction in the district court, a Plaintiff must assert a civil claim. ... Because Plaintiff cannot establish subject-matter jurisdiction based upon 18 U.S.C. § 242, a criminal statute, the Court will DISMISS the claim.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts federal claims.

TAITT v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC · filed 2025-07-21

Plaintiffs’ assertion of these federal claims against Defendants provided the Defendants with one sufficient justification to remove the Plaintiffs’ case from state court, based on federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction when a complaint raises issues of federal law under RICO.

Board of Education of Joliet Township High School, District 204 v. Publicis Health, LLC · filed 2025-09-08

The complaint raises issues of federal law under the RICO Act, so the court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to remove a state dependency proceeding based on a federal constitutional defense.

Norris · filed 2025-11-05

It cannot be removed to federal court “on the basis of a federal defense,” including Williams’ claims that her constitutional rights have been violated by the state court proceedings. See id. at 393. And Williams doesn’t explain how the juvenile dependency proceedings could have been filed in federal court. Nor does the court expect Williams could make this showing as Alabama’s juvenile courts have “exclusive original jurisdiction” over dependency actions. See Ala. Code § 12-15-114(a) and (c). As a result, Williams’ notice of removal fails to invoke this court’s subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and is thus ineffective.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction when a complaint alleges claims arising under federal law.

Headrick · filed 2025-11-24

As such, Plaintiff alleges federal claims, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is denied.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action that relies solely on the Declaratory Judgment Act and raises state-law issues.

Internal Path Ecclesiastical Trust v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation · filed 2025-12-03

The Complaint fails to establish, on its face, that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims set forth therein because the Court’s federal-question jurisdiction does not extend to a declaratory judgment action that relies solely upon the Declaratory Judgment Act, raises state law issues, and fails to allege a case or controversy.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims under the Freedom of Information Act.

Tidwell · filed 2025-12-30

The court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FOIA claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint pleads a federal cause of action, even if it also pleads state-law claims.

Moultray · filed 2026-05-05

Irrespective of which pleading controls, federal jurisdiction exists. Both Moultray’s original complaint and her Amended Complaint contain a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim.

Section 1331(a) gives district courts jurisdiction over a civil action that turns on construing a treaty between the United States and a foreign nation.

United States v. Doherty · filed 1985-06-25(a)

28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) grants the district courts original jurisdiction if a civil action "arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... The case at bar turns upon the proper construction of a treaty between the United States and a foreign nation. I conclude that subject matter jurisdiction is present.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims brought under federal statutes, even when those claims are later dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Monbo v. Upper Chesapeake Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2021-08-23

The plaintiffs do raise claims under three federal statutes, however, which is sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. □ 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when ERISA conflict preemption is only a defense to a state-law claim.

State of Illinois v. American National Insurance Company · filed 2022-10-31

While the conflict preemption provisions of Section 1144 may serve as a defense to Plaintiff’s IFCA claim, it does not serve as a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify a federal law under which the plaintiff could potentially recover to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Berisha v. The Grove Hotel · filed 2023-06-29

Here, Berisha has failed to establish jurisdiction through federal question by failing to provide any federal law under which she could potentially recover.

A cause of action created by the Warsaw Convention arises under a treaty of the United States and supports Section 1331 jurisdiction.

Benjamins v. British European Airways · filed 1978-03-06

We do, on the other hand, believe that the desirability of uniformity in international air law can best be recognized by holding that the Convention, otherwise universally applicable, is also the universal source of a right of action. ... Most cases will fall under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as they do today; only when plaintiffs and defendants are all aliens, but the United States is a nation with treaty jurisdiction, will it be necessary to invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not make international documents enforceable when they are not treaties in force, are not self-executing, and do not create private rights of action.

Huynh Thi Anh and Dao Thanh Linh v. Edward Levi, Attorney General of the United States · filed 1978-10-20

The international documents relied upon by plaintiffs, therefore, do not create private rights and duties respecting custody enforceable as treaties under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Under Section 1331(a)'s former requirements, an action requiring interpretation of the Warsaw Convention supports jurisdiction when more than $10,000 is in controversy.

Hughes-Gibb & Co., Ltd. v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc. · filed 1981-01-12(a)

As in the matter at bar the defendant’s potential liability is predicated upon an interpretation of the Warsaw Convention, 49 U.S.C. § 1502 note, and the amount in controversy exceeds $10,-000, exclusive of interest and costs, subject matter jurisdiction over the cause properly lies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a cargo-damage claim governed by the Warsaw Convention, a ratified United States treaty.

Jaycees Patou, Inc. v. Pier Air International, Ltd. · filed 1989-05-26

Originally filed in state supreme court, defendant Trans World Airlines, Inc. (“TWA”) removed this action as one arising under the Unification of Certain Rules relating to International Transportation by Air (the “Warsaw Convention”), October 12, 1929, 49 Stat. 3000 (1934), ... and hence under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... As a duly ratified treaty of the United States, the Warsaw Convention has the force of federal law. ... For this reason, the Warsaw Convention applies.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a claim arising exclusively under the Warsaw Convention, without regard to the amount-in-controversy requirements of other jurisdictional statutes.

Thompson v. British Airways, Inc. · filed 1990-04-20

Thompson's case exclusively “arose under” the Convention, a treaty signed by the United States. ... Therefore, the court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (1982), as alleged in Thompson's original complaint, regardless of his ability to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirements of other jurisdictional statutes.

Section 1331 does not permit removal of a Warsaw Convention case when the well-pleaded complaint asserts only state-law wrongful-death claims and the Convention appears only as a federal defense.

Calderon Ex Rel. Estate of Calderon v. Aerovias Nacionales De Colombia, Avianca, Inc. · filed 1990-05-29

jurisdiction through removal if a federal cause of action does not appear on the face of the well pleaded complaint.” ... While Plaintiff could have pleaded a federal cause of action, he has chosen to couch the complaint in terms of state law. This Court will not now disturb Plaintiffs choice of forum.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a claim arising under the Warsaw Convention when the Convention covers transportation from the United States to Taiwan.

Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. · filed 1992-08-05

Clearly, the place of departure, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is “situated in” a territory that is a party to the convention; however, the convention provides a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction in this particular action only if Taipei, Taiwan— the place of destination — also is a party to the convention. ... Accordingly, because the court concludes that Taiwan is part of the PRC, and thus, is a party to the Warsaw Convention, federal subject matter jurisdiction exists over this action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over Warsaw Convention cases because interpreting a treaty presents a federal question.

Bobian v. CSA Czech Airlines · filed 2002-09-12

Therefore, a federal court has the authority to hear Warsaw Convention cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because interpretation of a treaty falls under a federal court’s “arising under” jurisdiction.

Section 1331’s treaty jurisdiction covers an alien’s civil action alleging a tort in violation of a United States treaty that falls within the treaty branch of § 1350.

Jogi, Tejpaul v. Voges, Tim · filed 2005-09-27

Today, we cannot imagine a case that an alien could bring under the “treaty” branch of § 1350 that would not also fall within the “treaty” jurisdiction of § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff relying on a treaty for federal-question jurisdiction to identify the treaty and show that the claims arise under a treaty of the United States.

Evans v. Lavallais · filed 2020-06-18

While the Complaint refers to a “Friendship Treaty,” it is unclear to which treaty Plaintiff is referring and whether his claims arise under any treaty of the United States.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a substantial dispute about tribal-court civil jurisdiction when resolving it requires construing federal treaties, statutes, and overriding federal interests.

UNC Resources, Inc. v. Benally · filed 1981-07-16

It is unnecessary to pass upon the applicability of sections 1332 (diversity), and 1337 (acts regulating commerce), since the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction under § 1331 (federal question). ... This case presents the substantial federal question of whether the Navajo Tribal Court has civil jurisdiction over UNC under the present circumstances. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that this action arises under the treaties and laws, if not the Constitution, ... United States within the meaning of § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide treaty-based jurisdiction for claims founded on international documents that have not been ratified by the Senate and therefore lack the force of treaty law in the United States.

Centre for the Independence of Judges & Lawyers of the United States, Inc. v. Mabey · filed 1982-03-12

It simplifies matters to observe at this point that the Centre’s claims in no way arise “under the . . . treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1981); U.S.Const., Art. II, Sec. 2. None of the documents relied upon by the Centre have received Senate ratification as treaties, and do not have the force of treaty law within the United States.

A cause of action created by an international treaty arises under federal law for purposes of Section 1331.

Enayati v. Lufthansa German Airlines · filed 1983-08-22

Because we find that Enayati’s action arises under a treaty of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, we need not reach his other jurisdictional contentions.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff asserts a right to proceed under federal law and seeks affirmative relief against state interference with that right.

BOARD OF ELECTRIC LIGHT COMMISSIONERS OF CITY OF BURLINGTON v. McCARREN · filed 1983-12-30

Appellees assert the right to proceed in accordance with the federal statutes and regulations, and they sought an injunction to nullify the Board's interference with that right. The district court's decision that the Board's order was without legal force and effect was simply a response to appellees' demand for the affirmative relief which was their right under the federal law. The granting of such relief was a proper exercise of the district court's subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous claim based on a federal statutory violation regardless of whether the claim ultimately succeeds.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,624 Duane v. Haas v. Wieboldt Stores, Inc. · filed 1984-01-12

A claim based on a violation of a federal statute is a claim arising under federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question); also (though redundantly, since section 1331 no longer requires a minimum amount in controversy), section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa, confers federal jurisdiction specifically over claims of violation of federal securities law. It does not matter whether the plaintiff’s claim is meritorious.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a tariff-linked alter-ego and fraud action seeking to collect a federal judgment for interstate freight charges.

Blackburn Truck Lines, Inc. v. Raymond J. Francis, an Individual Maria Francis, an Individual Crisp International, Inc., · filed 1984-01-13

That risk may be small in this case; but it sufficiently exists to require that we hold that jurisdiction exists under both 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1337.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a claim that delay in NLRB proceedings violated the petitioner’s due-process rights.

Sparks Nugget, Inc. v. Scott · filed 1984-01-16

Since petitioner contends that the Board’s delay has violated its due process rights, this Court has jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over substantial claims arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Prakash v. American University · filed 1984-02-10

Those claims “aris[e] under the ... laws ... of the United States” ... — the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act— the District Court clearly has jurisdiction to consider them.

Section 1331 may support an independent action challenging the constitutionality of an OSHA inspection program and its application to a business.

Donovan v. Gretna Machine & Ironworks, Inc. · filed 1984-02-13

Moreover, we agree with defendant’s view that Gretna could have filed an independent action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 1346 and 2201 and. under Article IV and Article V of the Amendments to the Constitution.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a claim that a federal agency failed to comply with a federal statute and its accompanying regulations.

Jean v. Nelson · filed 1984-02-28

In this case, plaintiffs’ claim could be heard by the district court pursuant to its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, since petitioners are seeking a determination whether the Refugee Act of 1980 and its accompanying regulations require the INS to notify aliens of their right to apply for political asylum prior to the commencement of exclusion proceedings before an immigration judge.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under provisions of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act that are not exclusively local and that directly affect the federal government.

Thomas v. Barry · filed 1984-03-02

Because we find that the Home Rule Act is not exclusively a local statute, we reverse the district court’s dismissal for lack of federal question jurisdiction.

A claim created by the Warsaw Convention as modified by the Montreal Agreement arises under a United States treaty and therefore falls within Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction.

Darras v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · filed 1985-11-14

Accordingly William’s claim must be viewed as “arising under” the Convention as modified by the Agreement, not under the Agreement alone. ... Because federal-question jurisdiction exists, Darrases’ motion to remand is denied.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over a declaratory action arising under a United States extradition treaty.

United States v. Joseph Patrick Thomas Doherty · filed 1986-03-13

Subject matter jurisdiction was sufficiently alleged under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on the ground that the action arose under the Treaty.

Section 1331 permits a Warsaw Convention claim to be filed directly in federal court and supports removal when such a claim is pleaded in state court, but a complaint asserting only state wrongful-death law is not removable merely because the Convention may supply a defense.

Rhymes v. Arrow Air, Inc. · filed 1986-05-27

If the Plaintiff so chooses he may bring a cause of action exclusively under the Warsaw Convention and if he wishes he might attach a state cause of action. This type of case could be brought directly in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or in the appropriate state court. Of course, if this type of action was brought in state court it could be properly removed to federal court. ... The mere pleading of a federal statute or treaty as a defense will not be enough to invoke federal jurisdiction through removal if a federal cause of action does not appear on the face of the well pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 does not supply treaty jurisdiction over a Warsaw Convention claim when the Convention's own jurisdictional requirements are not satisfied.

Adesina v. Swissair · filed 1986-12-12

Thus if this court has no jurisdiction under the treaty, there is no basis for claiming the case “arises” under a treaty and thus no basis for removal.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over claims arising under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention.

In Re Air Crash Disaster at Gander, Newfoundland · filed 1987-04-20

Further, this court has jurisdiction over the claims against Arrow arising under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 grants district courts jurisdiction over a claim arising under a self-executing treaty of the United States.

Rainbow Navigation, Inc. v. Department of the Navy · filed 1988-05-17

The Navy protests that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Rainbow’s claims, but according to 28 U.S. C. § 1331, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under ... treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331’s grant for cases arising under United States treaties does not confer jurisdiction when the treaty itself does not permit suit in the chosen federal forum.

Kapar v. Kuwait Airways Corporation · filed 1988-06-12

If treaty jurisdiction under the Convention does not lie, federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), which permits cases ... arising under ... United States treaties, clearly cannot be established.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction when a tribe's well-pleaded complaint alleges Indian title based on federal treaties and the Non-intercourse Act.

Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina, Also Known as the Catawba Nation of South Carolina v. State of South Carolina · filed 1989-01-23

Section 1331 provides another independent basis for jurisdiction. This section gives district courts jurisdiction of “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” The tribe’s complaint alleged a right of occupancy under treaties with the British Crown that were implemented by the Non-intercourse Act. These allegations of Indian title sufficed to satisfy the well-pleaded complaint rule.

A tribe's action to enforce its ordinance against non-Indians arises under federal law when the tribe must prove its disputed federal statutory or common-law power to enact and apply the ordinance outside its community.

Chilkat Indian Village v. Johnson · filed 1989-03-23

It would be too technical, we believe, to focus only on the ultimate ordinance, which is not federal, and to ignore the necessity for the Village to prove its disputed federal power to enact and apply it to those outside of its community. We conclude, therefore, that the Village's claim against Johnson and his corporation arises under federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to decide whether an Indian tribe may compel a non-Indian to submit to a tribal court's civil jurisdiction.

DeMent ex rel. DeMent v. Oglala Sioux Tribal Court · filed 1989-05-03

The question of whether an Indian tribe has the power to compel a non-Indian to submit to the civil jurisdiction of a tribal court is a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 remains available for constitutional challenges to Indian probate proceedings because the administrative finality provision in 25 U.S.C. Section 372 does not preclude those claims.

George Kicking Woman v. Donald P. Hodel, Secretary of the Interior, and Leo Lee Old Person · filed 1989-07-05

we decline to expand the scope of 25 U.S.C. § 372 to constitutionally-founded claims and, accordingly, hold that the section does not preclude the invocation of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for those plaintiffs who seek to challenge the constitutionality of Indian probate proceedings conducted by the Department of the Interior.

An individual plaintiff’s claim raising the inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe presents a sufficient federal question for jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Native Village of Venetie v. State of Alaska · filed 1990-11-06

Joseph's and Solomon's claims, as well as those of the native villages, raise the issue of the inherent tribal sovereignty of the native villages. As such, the district court possessed jurisdiction over these claims under section 1331.

An individual's claim raising the inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe presents a sufficient federal question for jurisdiction under section 1331.

Native Village of Venetie v. State of Alaska · filed 1991-09-12

As to the individual plaintiffs, Joseph and Solomon, the district court had jurisdiction over their claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Joseph's and Solomon's claims, as well as those of the native villages, raise the issue of the inherent tribal sovereignty of the native villages. As such, the district court possessed jurisdiction over these claims under section 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a Warsaw Convention claim when the Convention’s jurisdictional requirements are not met.

Sopcak v. Northern Mountain Helicopter Services · filed 1992-11-30

The ultimate destination was Vancouver, British Columbia. Therefore, pursuant to the terms of the Convention, this court does not have jurisdiction over this case. Further, if treaty jurisdiction does not lie, federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which permits cases arising under United States treaties, cannot be established.

Section 1331 permits a tribe to establish federal-question jurisdiction to assert hunting rights recognized by federal law despite lacking administrative recognition by the Department of the Interior.

Timpanogos Tribe v. Conway · filed 2002-04-15

Accordingly, the Tribe here may establish federal question jurisdiction in asserting its hunting rights despite the fact that it is not recognized by the Department of the Interior.

Section 1331 confers subject matter jurisdiction over all treaty-based fishing rights, including rights in waters beyond Washington State's territorial limits.

United States v. Washington · filed 2013-12-31

The Court’s subject matter jurisdiction in this case arises from the treaties under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. That jurisdiction extends to all treaty-based fishing and is not limited to State of Washington waters.