28 U.S.C. § 1331

Lanham Act trademark claims arise under federal law and support jurisdiction under Section 1331 as well as the trademark-specific jurisdictional statute.

Ferrero U.S.A., Inc. v. Ozak Trading, Inc. · filed 1991-01-02

The Lanham Act claims arise under the laws of the United States and, in particular, under an act of Congress relating to trademarks which provides that the district courts shall have original jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1121, and this Court also had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

Section 1331, together with CERCLA’s specific jurisdictional grant and Section 1345, gives a district court subject-matter jurisdiction over the United States’ CERCLA enforcement claims.

United States v. Kramer · filed 1991-02-08

Paragraph 2 of the complaint alleges jurisdiction under section 113(b) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(b) (federal district courts “shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all controversies arising under this chapter”), as well as under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (United States a plaintiff). The court has subject matter jurisdiction, and we will strike these defenses.

Section 1331’s federal-question jurisdiction rules do not govern jurisdiction over the Red Cross based on the independent grant in its charter.

Roe v. Little Co. of Mary Hospital · filed 1992-12-18

This implies that the Red Cross, by virtue of its statutorily-based jurisdictional grant, is not bound by the rules governing jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over an FTCA claim that presents a federal question, even if the claim fails on the merits.

Luna v. United States · filed 2006-07-17

The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction because Luna brought her claim under the FTCA, which is to say she presented the district court with a federal question.

Section 1331 or Section 1337 supplies federal jurisdiction to enforce an award of an airline System Board of Adjustment required by the Railway Labor Act.

Robert F. Verville and John G. DeBruyn v. International Association of Machinists · filed 1975-08-05

It is well established that under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1337, a federal court has jurisdiction of a suit to enforce an award of an airline System Board of Adjustment.

Section 1331 or Section 1337 supplies federal jurisdiction to enforce an award of an airline System Board of Adjustment required by the Railway Labor Act.

Verville v. International Ass'n of Machinists Workers · filed 1975-08-05

Federal law required the parties to enter into a contract establishing a System Board of Adjustment. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1337, federal courts had jurisdiction of suits to enforce awards of airline System Boards of Adjustment.

Section 1331 does not authorize a losing party to obtain district-court review of a contractual special railway adjustment board's award when the Railway Labor Act provides no such review.

Merchants Despatch Transportation Corp. v. System Federation Number One Railway Employees' Department AFL-CIO Carmen · filed 1976-04-08

We, therefore, hold that jurisdiction does not exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because of a right arising under the Railway Labor Act.

A suit to enforce an airline special-board-of-adjustment award arises under federal law and falls within Sections 1331 and 1337.

Hart v. Overseas National Airways Inc · filed 1976-08-24

Jurisdiction thus exists under both 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.

Section 1331's arising-under jurisdiction covers claims requiring construction and application of collective-bargaining agreements governed by the Railway Labor Act.

Hages v. Aliquippa & Southern Railroad · filed 1977-02-28

The construction and application of these agreements are federal questions and, therefore, properly removable to a federal district court since it has authority to decide such questions by virtue of the “arising under” jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to review awards of special adjustment boards created under the Railway Labor Act.

Merchants Despatch Transportation Corporation v. Systems Federation Number One Railway Employees' Department Afl-Cio Car · filed 1977-03-09

Accordingly, we hold that the federal courts have jurisdiction under sections 1331 and 1337 to review awards of special boards of adjustment.

Sections 1331 and 1337 provide jurisdiction over a petition to impeach a major-dispute arbitration award for alleged noncompliance with the Railway Labor Act.

Gibbons v. United Transportation Union · filed 1977-09-21

We hold that this Court does have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 over Counts I and II of plaintiff’s petition, and in part over Count III, for the reasons set forth below.

Section 1331 does not give district courts jurisdiction over minor Railway Labor Act disputes concerning the interpretation and application of labor agreements, which must be determined by the National Railway Adjustment Board.

J.W. Chambers v. Burlington Northern, Inc. · filed 1982-11-02

Jurisdiction is asserted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1336, and 1337. ... The case before us presents a claim by one employee that the railroad has not recognized the seniority, or paid the allowances, to which he is entitled on a transfer. We are convinced that these are minor disputes for determination by the Adjustment Board, not the courts. ... The district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction and properly dismissed the case.

Section 1331 cannot be used to review Railroad Retirement Board decisions outside the exclusive review procedure established by the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.

Steebe v. United States Railroad Retirement Board · filed 1983-05-13

In light of subsection (g), neither the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, nor 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides jurisdiction to review a Board decision regardless of whether fitting within subsection (c) of the RUIA.

Section 1331 grants federal courts jurisdiction over a claim that depends directly on construing the Constitution.

United States House of Representatives v. Burwell · filed 2015-09-09

The relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, similarly confers jurisdiction when the “case depends directly on construction of the Constitution.” Powell, 395 U.S. at 516. The Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over an unconstitutional-conditions claim that raises a constitutional question, even before the claimant proves the claim or prevails on its merits.

R.S.W.W., Inc., D/B/A Goose Island Brewery v. City of Keego Harbor · filed 2005-02-10

Goose Island’s allegation that the city withheld approval of its request for a site plan amendment and a zoning variance and its request to change the name on its sign until Goose Island would agree to shorten its operating hours at least raises a constitutional question over which the district court had jurisdiction. Accordingly, the district court erred in dismissing Goose Island’s unconstitutional conditions claim on grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Whether Goose Island can .produce any evidence to support the claim or should ultimately prevail are separate issues that are not before this Court since the district court did not address the merits of this claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a negligence claim against a private party when the alleged conduct does not violate the Constitution.

Tinsley v. Methodist Hospital of Indiana, Inc. · filed 1995-11-22

Because the Constitution does not protect Tinsley's liberty interests or individual welfare against infringement by private parties, Methodist Hospital's alleged negligence does not amount to a constitutional violation. Accordingly, Tinsley's suit does not arise under the Constitution, and hence, Sec. 1331 confers no jurisdiction on federal courts to hear this case.

A constitutional challenge to a District of Columbia local statute arises under the Constitution for purposes of § 1331 despite the statute's local character.

POLICE OFFICERS'GUILD, NAT. U. OF POL. OF. v. Washington · filed 1973-12-21

The claim that Section 4-125 violates the plaintiffs’ rights of free speech and association clearly “arises under the Constitution” within the meaning of Section 1331. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaints' notwithstanding plaintiffs’ challenge to a “local” statute.

Section 1331 can supply jurisdiction over a damages claim alleging that a state official deprived the plaintiff of federal constitutional rights when the amount claimed exceeds the historical threshold.

Wall v. King · filed 1953-07-31

the jurisdiction may be rested upon the more general provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A damages complaint asserting deprivation of federal constitutional rights arises under § 1331 when the right to recover depends on competing constructions of the Constitution or federal law.

Lowe v. Manhattan Beach City School District · filed 1955-04-19

We are of the opinion that this conclusion of the district court is erroneous and that the cause arises under the Constitution of the United States. We are of the opinion that the case of Bell v. Hood, 1946, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939, is conclusive authority for the district court to take jurisdiction and determine the merits of the cause. ... Thus, the right of the petitioners to recover under their complaint will be sustained if the Constitution and laws of the United States are given one construction and will be defeated if they are given another. For this reason the District Court has jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies original jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to a federal statute even when equitable doctrines require dismissal without reaching the merits.

Sierra Drawn Steel Corp. v. Gregory · filed 1953-08-31

(a) that this court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action [28 U.S.C. § 1331] ... the judgment of dismissal shall so provide.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a federal constitutional challenge to a state statute is not lost merely because the state courts have not yet construed the challenged statute.

NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Patty · filed 1958-01-21

These rulings, however, do not mean that the federal courts lose jurisdiction in cases where the state courts have not passed upon the statute under attack or that the federal court is powerless to take any action until a decision by the state court has been rendered.

Section 1331, together with the former three-judge-court statute, supplied jurisdiction over a suit seeking to enjoin a federal statute as unconstitutional even though statutes governing review of Interstate Commerce Commission orders did not apply.

State of New Jersey v. United States · filed 1959-03-02

We recognize jurisdiction here under 28 U.S.C. § 2282 (1952), in conjunction with 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1952). ... We find no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1336 (1952), because the action is not one to “enforce, enjoin, set aside, annul or suspend, .in whole or in part, any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.”

An action arising under the Railway Labor Act and Interstate Commerce Act falls within federal jurisdiction under §§ 1331 and 1337.

Pennsylvania Railroad v. Local 2013 of United Railroad Workers Division of Transport Workers Union · filed 1959-10-13

Under the United States Code, Title 28, §§ 1331 and 1337, this Court has jurisdiction over this action which arises under the Railway Labor Act, U.S.C.A., Title 45, § 152, First and Second, § 155, First and Second, § 156, and under the Interstate Commerce Act, U.S.C.A., Title 49, § 1 et seq.

A cause that does not arise under the asserted federal substantive statute also does not furnish jurisdiction under § 1331.

Weir v. Chicago Plastering Institute, Inc. · filed 1959-10-16

For the reasons hereinabove set forth, I hold that neither Cause No. 59 C 726, nor Cause No. 59 C 779, “arises” under Section 302 or consequently, under Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1337. I hold that this Court is without jurisdiction to hear this consolidated cause.

A local union officer’s claim for loss of office and control through a private union trusteeship does not arise under federal law within section 1331 absent diversity.

Flaherty v. McDonald · filed 1960-02-05

(10) absent diversity of citizenship [28 U.S.C. § 1332], this Court can have no jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim by local officers for loss of office, control and management of a local union by the wrongful imposition and administration of a trusteeship by the international union and its officers and agents, since such a claim does not arise “under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States” [28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(b)], ... It is ordered that the plaintiffs’ complaint filed December 23, 1959, is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter with leave to amend.

A challenge to maladministration of a state tax law, without attacking the law’s constitutionality, presents no federal question under section 1331.

Kortz v. Ellingson · filed 1960-03-15

The Court is of the opinion that there is no federal question involved within the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... But there is no attack on the constitutionality of the Colorado statutes under which plaintiff is being taxed. The attack is on the maladministration of the tax statutes. And maladministration of a law does not make it unconstitutional.

Sections 1331 and 1343 clearly vest jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge alleging that a state college expelled students arbitrarily and without notice or an opportunity to be heard.

Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education · filed 1960-08-26

The law is now too well settled and the authorities are now too numerous for this Court to spend any considerable time on the various defenses herein raised by these defendants challenging the jurisdiction of this Court to hear and decide this type controversy. It suffices to say that jurisdiction is clearly vested by Title 28 U.S.C., §§ 1331 and 1343(3).

A properly pleaded § 1983 claim against officers acting under color of state law falls within federal jurisdiction under §§ 1331 and 1343.

Selico v. Jackson · filed 1962-01-23

The motion will be denied, on the ground that the court has jurisdiction of this action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, that the complaint states a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and that said moving defendant is not immune from suit in the circumstances here presented.

A federal statutory claim may fall within §§ 1331 and 1337 even without a separate statute specifically conferring jurisdiction.

International Ass'n of MacHinists v. Central Airlines, Inc. · filed 1963-05-27

The absence of a specific statute conferring jurisdiction, in addition to §§ 1331 and 1337, was of no moment in such cases.

A constitutional challenge to state regulation creates federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 even when the challenged regulation is ultimately upheld on the merits.

American Travelers Club, Inc. v. Hostetter · filed 1963-06-24

We hold, (1) that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and that this three-judge District Court was properly convened under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284; (2) that the Pullman doctrine of “equitable abstention” (Railroad Comm. of Texas v. Pullman Co., 1941, 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971) should not be applied to the instant case; (3) that as applied to plaintiff’s business operation Bulletin No. 359 is neither contrary to the New York Alchoholic Beverage Control Law, nor in violation of the Supremacy, Commerce, Due Process, Privileges and Immunities, or Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction when federal law creates the asserted claim and the claim matures through a federally authorized contract.

Merge v. Sharott · filed 1965-02-16

We do not consider that there is any diversity problem in this appeal. The instant claim was created by Federal law and matured through the Title I contract. Jurisdiction was conferred on the District Court by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as amended July 25, 1958, 72 Stat. 415.

Section 1331 jurisdiction requires the asserted right of action to be based on a violation of federal law, not merely the presence of a federal-law question in the suit.

Barnett v. Anaconda Company · filed 1965-02-17(a)

A careful analysis must be made to determine whether the claim of right on which federal suit is brought has its basis in a violation of federal law.

Section 1331 jurisdiction requires the action to arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Tyson v. Cazes · filed 1965-02-26

Therefore, in order for this Court to have jurisdiction over this matter under Section 1331, the action must arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States, and in order for jurisdiction to vest under Section 1343, the action must arise as a result of (1) a conspiracy mentioned in Section 1985, or (2) a deprivation, under color of state law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of some right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or (3) damages sustained by plaintiff which are recoverable under some Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights.

Section 1331 reaches an expressly or impliedly federally created remedy and a properly pleaded state-created claim that necessarily presents a pivotal issue of federal law.

Mcfaddin Express, Incorporated v. The Adley Corporation · filed 1965-06-07

In testing the complaint for sufficient assertion of a federal question, we apply, faute de mieux, the approach utilized with respect to 28 U.S.C. § 1338 in T. B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823, 826-828 (2 Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 85 S.Ct. 1534 (1965), namely, whether the complaint is for a remedy expressly granted by an act of Congress or otherwise "inferred" from federal law, or whether a properly pleaded "state-created" claim itself presents a "pivotal question of federal law," for example because an act of Congress must be construed or "`federal common law' govern[s] some disputed aspect" of the claim.

A Jones Act claim arises under federal law and therefore supplies Section 1331 jurisdiction in a nondiversity action brought outside admiralty.

McCord v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. · filed 1965-06-11

On the other hand, Section 1331 of Title 28 U.S.C. is applicable since one basis for jurisdiction was specifically stated in the complaint to be the Jones Act.

Section 1331 covers a challenge alleging that a state election requirement violates the United States Constitution.

Harman v. Forssenius · filed 1965-04-27

The question presented in this case — whether the Virginia statute imposes- a condition upon the franchise which violates the United States Constitution — is thus quite clearly a federal question.

Section 1331 covers a state-law abuse-of-process claim concerning federal judicial process when a paramount federal interest requires the claim to be governed by federal common law.

Nationwide Charters & Conventions, Inc. v. Garber · filed 1966-04-25(a)

In view of the federal interest in the subject matter of this cause of action and because it must be determined according to federal law, this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and the motion to remand is denied.

A direct constitutional attack on an act of Congress arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States for Section 1331 purposes, subject to the plaintiff's standing.

Katz v. United States · filed 1966-08-04

Since plaintiffs are directly attacking the constitutionality of an act of Congress, there is no doubt but that the controversy is one which arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory action concerning Indian treaty hunting rights.

Holcomb v. Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation · filed 1967-09-19

The district court held that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 relating to federal questions and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act. We agree.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction over a substantial controversy requiring interpretation of the Constitution, a federal statute, and federal regulations.

Texas Oil and Gas Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · filed 1967-12-18(a)

Jurisdiction is present in this Court by reason of a substantial controversy between the parties which arises under the above mentioned clause of the United States Constitution, the above enumerated statutes of the Federal Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and said rules and regulations of the Secretary of the Interior. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (a). The Court finds the required jurisdictional amount to be involved.

Section 1331 requires a district court to assume jurisdiction over a complaint seeking recovery under federal law unless the federal claim is immaterial, jurisdictionally contrived, or wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Huey v. Barloga · filed 1967-12-27

Where the complaint is drawn to seek recovery under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the district court must assume jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and make a determination on the merits of the claim. The only exceptions to this principle are where the alleged claim appears to be immaterial and solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where the claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Claims based on construing federal laws and constitutional amendments arise under federal law and satisfy Section 1331's jurisdictional requirement.

Landry v. Daley · filed 1967-12-28

The plaintiffs' claims are based on the construction and effect of various federal laws and certain Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This would seem to satisfy any common sense approach to the meaning of the phrase "arising under" in section 1331.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a private federal claim for injuries caused by violations of a federal statute and its implementing regulations.

Town of East Haven v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. · filed 1968-01-31

Thus, jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1337, and plaintiffs state a sufficient claim for relief.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction to determine an employee's rights under the Railway Labor Act unless the dispute first requires resort to a statutory adjustment procedure.

Struski v. Penn Central Co. · filed 1969-01-17

There is not such a dispute here, however, and we take jurisdiction to determine rights under section 2 (eleventh) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337 as previously discussed.

Section 1331(a) does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when there is no logical relationship between the plaintiff's case and the federal law cited as the jurisdictional basis.

Van Daele v. Vinci · filed 1968-12-23(a)

Finally, Counts One and Two allege federal jurisdiction exists by reason of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), which is applicable to actions arising under a federal law when the matter in controversy exceeds $10,000. The plaintiff has cited a total of six other federal statutes in its jurisdictional allegations in these counts. As discussed individually in this opinion, none of these statutes is relevant to this case. Where there is no logical relation between the plaintiff’s case and the federal law on which he bases his jurisdictional assertion, this court does not have “federal question” jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a complaint presenting federal constitutional challenges to municipal election procedures.

Hackett v. President of Philadelphia · filed 1969-04-19

This Court is unable to agree with the defendant that there are no federal constitutional issues advanced in the plaintiffs’ complaint; hence the defendant’s motion to dismiss must be denied.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over federal questions concerning whether a federal appellate judgment is violated and whether a federal judge's conduct was official judicial conduct.

Chandler v. O'Bryan · filed 1969-04-23

Finally, this Court found jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that federal questions were presented as to whether a United States Court of Appeals’ judgment is violated by the subsequent libel action, and whether Judge Chandler’s actions are part of the official conduct of a federal judge in defending the malicious prosecution action.

Section 1331 supports removal when a federal question arises from a state tax collector's attempt to tax production on a federal military enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

Ashton J. Mouton, Collector of Revenue, State of Louisiana, Plaintiff v. Sinclair Oil and Gas Company · filed 1969-05-19

Nor is there any merit in the Collector’s contention that this suit was improperly removed from the Louisiana state court to the federal district court since it is apparent that the federal court has jurisdiction both under diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, in that the Collector is acting unconstitutionally and therefore in an individual capacity and not as the official representative of the State of Louisiana, and because a federal question is presented, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in that the Collector is attempting to collect severance taxes on oil and gas produced from a federal military enclave, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, on which the United States has exclusive jurisdiction as provided by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, of the United States' Constitution.

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction over an actual controversy concerning a federally registered trademark and the right to its registration.

Sam S. Goldstein Industries, Inc. v. Botany Industries, Inc. · filed 1969-07-22(a)

This count adequately sets forth facts showing that an actual controversy exists respecting the propriety of plaintiff’s registration of its trademark, and would thus appear sufficiently to allege a claim arising under the laws of the United States, over which this Court has jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a), 1338(a) (1964).

Section 1331 broadly authorizes jurisdiction over suits whose resolution depends directly on construing the Constitution, including a challenge to the exclusion of a member of Congress.

Powell v. McCormack · filed 1969-10-13(a)

And, as noted above, the resolution of this case depends directly on construction of the Constitution. The Court has consistently held such suits are authorized by the statute.

Section 1331(a) provides subject-matter jurisdiction over challenges to federal agency action when the claims arise under the federal statute governing that agency.

Ramapo Bank v. Camp · filed 1970-04-17(a)

Moreover, this Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the instant suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), inasmuch as appellants' contentions arise under a federal statute, the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 30 and 36(c) (2).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over claims that federal officials violated federal statutes governing administrative action.

Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Inc. v. Bartlett · filed 1970-04-30

I deem it unnecessary to determine the existence of jurisdiction under the latter Statutes since jurisdiction clearly exists under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Question Statute.

Section 1331 covers a school board's claim to protection from direct interference with its performance of a constitutionally imposed desegregation duty.

Board of Education of Independent School District 89, Oklahoma County v. Raymond P. York and Yvonne J. York · filed 1970-07-29

It has a federal right “to be free from direct and deliberate interference with the performance of the constitutionally imposed duty.” ... The right arises under the Constitution and is within the jurisdictional grant of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 confers subject-matter jurisdiction over claims that federal and local housing officials violated the Housing Act and its regulations.

Talbot v. Romney · filed 1970-08-20

They invoke the jurisdiction of this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides for federal court jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under federal law wherein the matter in controversy exceeds $10,000; ... That this court has subject matter jurisdiction herein is not, and indeed cannot be, contested.

A claim arising under the Railway Labor Act and Interstate Commerce Act falls within section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction.

Price v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY · filed 1970-09-11

This court has jurisdiction of this suit and of the parties. The claim asserted arises under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 151 et seq., and under the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. Jurisdiction of this suit exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337.

A claim that a bank director violated the National Banking Act's lending limit falls within section 1331 jurisdiction.

First National Bank of Lincolnwood v. Keller · filed 1970-09-16

Count 1 alleges that Keller participated in and assented to loans in excess of the Bank’s lending limit, in violation of the National Banking Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 84 and 93. ... This court has jurisdiction as to Count 1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and pendent jurisdiction as to Count 2.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over an action arising under the Railway Labor Act.

Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. United Transportation Union · filed 1971-08-13

This action arises under Section Two (2) First of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. § 152 First), and the Court has jurisdiction of the action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.

A complaint alleging a constitutional violation states a case arising under the Constitution within § 1331(a)'s original jurisdiction.

Hoots v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 1971-12-08(a)

Broadly stated, we have a case arising under the Constitution of the United States, over which the United States District Courts have original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a citizen-taxpayer action alleging that federal prosecution of a war violates the Constitution and treaties of the United States.

Atlee v. Nixon · filed 1972-01-20

The plaintiffs in this suit are citizen taxpayers who bring this action on their own behalf, and as representatives of a class consisting of all those similarly situated, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 23. They allege that the prosecution of the war in Southeast Asia violates various provisions of the United States Constitution, Treaties of the United States, and doctrines of international law. They seek a permanent injunction against the allocation and expenditure of funds of the United States to prosecute the war. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supports federal jurisdiction over a substantial constitutional challenge to a local ordinance.

Boraas v. Village of Belle Terre · filed 1972-09-21

Rather there is here a direct invocation of the Federal Courts’ jurisdiction over cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, including the Civil Rights Law, the latter of which obviates the necessity for satisfying the jurisdictional amount requirement.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over an action arising under NEPA.

Cape Henry Bird Club v. Laird · filed 1973-04-02

Jurisdiction is vested in this court by reason of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this ease arises under a law of the United States, namely 42 U.S.C. § 4331.

A serious controversy over the constitutional balance between Congress and the President in exercising war powers arises under the Constitution for § 1331(a) purposes.

Holtzman v. Richardson · filed 1973-06-13(a)

Plaintiff has raised a serious constitutional question dealing with the war-making power of Congress enumerated in Article I, § 8 of the Constitution. ... The delicate balance in the relationship between Congress and the President concerning the power to wage war is a controversy arising under the Constitution and therefore within the jurisdiction of this court. 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a federal employee's action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging an allegedly unlawful removal.

Schwartz v. Secretary of the Treasury · filed 1973-10-05

This Court has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and is empowered to render a declaratory judgment herein under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that a federal military regulation violates constitutional rights.

Brown v. Schlesinger · filed 1973-10-30

First, jurisdiction is attained by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff's claim clearly involves a federal question. The essence of his complaint is a challenge to the Air .Force regulation governing the wearing of wigs by its personnel. Plaintiff challenges the regulation on the ground that it violates his constitutional rights, including his right to equal protection of law.

A claim that state officials discriminatorily applied an otherwise valid state statute presents a substantial federal question under § 1331.

Raner v. Edelman · filed 1973-11-02

Certainly the discriminatory application of a valid state statute raises a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 covers federal defendants in a complaint challenging federal criminal statutes on federal constitutional grounds.

Louisiana Affiliate of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Guste · filed 1974-03-19

In the present case the issue of jurisdiction against the federal and state defendants as well as the question of preclusion of substantiality through prior decisions is not present. The state defendants come within the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 since state action is attacked which allegedly results in the deprivation of constitutional rights. The federal defendants are covered by the issue of a federal question as alleged in the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Allegations of federal statutory and constitutional violations support district-court jurisdiction under § 1331.

States Marine Lines, Inc. v. George P. Shultz, Secretary of the Treasury · filed 1974-06-14

Having concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations assert both federal ... statutory and constitutional violations, jurisdiction in the District Court is readily available pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) gives a district court jurisdiction over claims that federal housing assistance violated NEPA and federal new-community-development law.

Sierra Club v. Lynn · filed 1974-10-04(a)

The district court correctly ruled that it was vested with jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) and that plaintiffs possessed standing, ... Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972).

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction for a civil suit alleging that federal agents acting within their authority violated constitutionally protected rights.

Wounded Knee Legal Defense/offense Committee v. The Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 1974-11-07

This we need not decide, however, because § 1331 supplies the requisite subject-matter jurisdiction. ... The Supreme Court determined in Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 680, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946), that a civil suit against federal agents acting within the scope of their authority for damages resulting from their violation of a person’s constitutionally protected rights could arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States, as required by the statutory predecessor of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) permits a litigant to bring a federal action alleging a constitutional violation directly under federal-question jurisdiction.

Occhino v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. · filed 1982-04-14(a)

A litigant may bring suit in federal court claiming a constitutional violation directly under the general federal question jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to consider a nonfrivolous claim for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 even if that statute may not create an independent cause of action.

Redd v. Lambert · filed 1982-05-03

Because plaintiffs have alleged a nonfrivolous claim that they are entitled to attorney’s fees under section. 1988, the district court had jurisdiction to consider their claim.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous claim that federal officials failed to discharge an unequivocal statutory duty.

Covelo Indian Community v. Watt · filed 1982-11-17

That allegation cannot be labelled “patently frivolous” in light of the admitted fact that defendants have refused to submit legislative proposals for the majority of 2415 claims deemed inappropriate for litigation, even though Section 2 does not, on its face, vest defendants with discretion to choose that course of inaction. We conclude, therefore, that plaintiffs have established federal jurisdiction.

A cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against federal officials is sufficient to establish jurisdiction under § 1331.

Lawrence v. United States · filed 1982-12-29

Far from being “devoid of merit,” the Court finds that plaintiff’s allegations regarding the severe harassment he received in retaliation for a letter he sent to a House subcommittee, state a cognizable First Amendment claim sufficient to establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous claim that a federal employee has a constitutionally protected property interest in employment.

Mareno v. Re · filed 1983-02-15

In the case at bar, Mareno’s claim is sufficiently non-frivolous to create a basis for federal court jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction for Commerce Clause claims brought directly under the Constitution rather than through § 1983.

Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware v. Kassel · filed 1984-03-27

As pointed out by the district court in its well-reasoned opinion, 556 F.Supp. 740, 743 (S.D.Iowa 1983), Commerce Clause actions traditionally have been brought directly under the Constitution with jurisdiction predicated on 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (Supp. V 1981) rather than under Sec. 1983 6 and its jurisdictional counterpart, Sec. 1343(3), even though under Sec. 1331 there was an amount in controversy requirement not necessary for actions brought under Sec. 1983.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over claims that state officials violated obligations imposed by the Social Security Act.

Ohio State Pharmaceutical Ass'n v. Creasy · filed 1984-04-20

The Court agrees that plaintiffs state a claim “arising under the ... laws ... of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a facial constitutional challenge to the Staggers Rail Act to originate in a district court rather than a court of appeals.

State of Texas v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission · filed 1984-04-23

A facial challenge to the Staggers Act must, in any event, originate in a district court, not in a court of appeals.

Section 1331 provides subject-matter jurisdiction over a federal Communications Act claim, alongside Section 1337 and supplemental jurisdiction.

Hoosier Home Theater, Inc. v. Adkins · filed 1984-08-07(a)

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) and § 1337(a) and pursuant to its pendant and ancillary jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction for actions asserting federal statutory claims, alongside more specific jurisdictional grants.

Central Hardware Co. v. Central States · filed 1984-08-15

This Court is vested with jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e), 15 U.S.C. §§ 15(a), 26, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a § 1983 action alleging a violation of the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Alerding v. Ohio High School Athletic Ass'n · filed 1984-08-20

Plaintiffs allege violations of their individual rights as guaranteed by the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which states: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Therefore, jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a federal Privacy Act action, alongside the Act’s specific jurisdictional provision.

Howard v. Marsh · filed 1984-09-13

This Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(5).

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction when a complaint raises a colorable claim that an inconsistent state child-custody decree violates the PKPA.

DiRuggiero v. Rodgers · filed 1984-09-17

As long as the complaint raises a colorable claim that it is the North Carolina decree that is inconsistent with federal law, the district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over count I of the complaint under section 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over disputes requiring the construction and application of a federal law, including a congressional law governing Indian lands.

Veiser v. Armstrong · filed 1984-09-18

It is clear that the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction in the original case brought by Armstrong. The terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 vest the federal district court with subject matter jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. The 1947 Act is a law of the United States promulgated by the Congress. Armstrong’s asserted right of possession is claimed under that federal law; thus subject matter jurisdiction was vested in the federal district court.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when resolving a removed foreclosure dispute requires applying the National Housing Act.

FEDERAL NAT. MORTG. ASS'N v. Rathgens · filed 1984-09-20

The case is properly before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982) since resolution of the dispute requires the application of the National Housing Act (NHA), 12 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. (1982).

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over federal RICO allegations when sufficient contacts with the United States are alleged.

Lopez v. Richards · filed 1984-09-21

Further, the Court is of the opinion that sufficient contacts with the United States, and with the State of Mississippi in particular, have been alleged to justify federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.

A constitutional claim supports federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331 unless it is wholly frivolous or clearly foreclosed by precedent.

District of Columbia v. Jerry M. · filed 1990-09-05

“Constitutional insubstantiality” for this purpose has been equated with such concepts as “essentially fictitious,” ... “wholly insubstantial,” ... “obviously frivolous,” ... and “obviously without merit.” ... A claim is insubstantial only if “ ‘its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that the questions sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy.’ ”

A federal copyright-infringement cross-claim supports Section 1331 jurisdiction and permits pendent jurisdiction over related state-law cross-claims.

Adriana International Corp. v. Thoeren · filed 1990-09-10

Thoeren's claims included a federal copyright infringement claim under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 501, et seq., which conferred jurisdiction on the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. Therefore, the court properly exercised pendent jurisdiction over Theoren's other state law claims under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(c).

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists when a complaint asserts a substantial federal claim even if the claim ultimately fails, but not when the asserted federal claim is plainly insubstantial or patently meritless.

Town of West Hartford v. Operation Rescue · filed 1990-10-10

For jurisdictional purposes the test is whether the complaint on its face, without resort to extraneous matter, is so plainly insubstantial as to be devoid of any merits and thus not presenting any issue worthy of adjudication.

When dismissal leaves only pendent state-law claims, Section 1331 no longer independently supplies jurisdiction, although the court may exercise discretion to retain those claims.

Ambrogi v. Gould, Inc. · filed 1991-01-09

Thus, jurisdiction is now lacking since only pendent state claims remain. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Retention of pendent state claims after dismissal of federal question is at the discretion of the court).

When Section 1331 is the sole basis for original jurisdiction and all federal claims are dismissed, the court may decline to retain the remaining state-law claims.

Starr v. JCI Data Processing, Inc. · filed 1991-02-04

The remaining counts ready for trial all involve state law claims. In the interest of comity and to promote justice, this court will dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies district court jurisdiction over civil actions alleging federal constitutional violations, subject to the Little Tucker Act jurisdictional cap.

Poole v. Rourke · filed 1991-12-23

It should be noted that plaintiff predicated jurisdiction on the United States Constitution alleging violations of his Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights by the United States (namely, by Secretary of the Air Force Russell A. Rourke). The subject matter jurisdiction of this court clearly exists in the general federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1988). That section 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." 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1988). Thus, were it not for the interposition of the jurisdictional cap in the Little Tucker Act, there could be no question as to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to FECA benefit denials only when the claims are cognizable, rather than mere allegations offered to create jurisdiction.

Domby v. U.S. Government Elizabeth Dole Employees Comp. · filed 1992-09-15

We lack jurisdiction to review the Secretary's denial of a claim for FECA benefits. 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b). We do have jurisdiction over constitutional claims; however, these claims must "be more than mere allegations included in the complaint to create jurisdiction where none would exist otherwise." Rodrigues v. Donovan, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (9th Cir.1985). ... Domby's criticism of the Secretary's investigation, like his claim that he need not produce any evidence, fails to spell out a cognizable constitutional claim.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the RICO claims fail for lack of evidence of predicate racketeering acts.

Wright, Inc., a Corporation v. Ecker Empire Electric Co., a Corporation Jones Group, Inc., a Foreign Corporation · filed 1992-12-02

The district court's jurisdiction was based upon a federal question, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Absent evidence to support the alleged predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, we are without federal question jurisdiction to entertain Wright's RICO claims. ... Because we affirm the district court's summary judgment order, there is no federal question jurisdiction to entertain Wright's remaining claims against Ecker.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution, including First Amendment claims.

Ohio Ex Rel. Manuel v. Ohio Department of Health · filed 1992-12-02

The original jurisdiction of the district courts includes “all civil actions arising under the Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides a pleaded jurisdictional basis for federal securities claims arising under federal law.

Ciro, Inc. v. Gold · filed 1993-03-02

Section 1331 confers upon the district courts subject matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, plaintiffs second amended complaint clearly alleges a jurisdictional basis for the federal securities claims in Counts I and III.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under federal trademark laws.

Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Crown Nation Bancorporation, Inc. · filed 1993-04-15

This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 in that the claims arise under the trademark laws of the United States.

Section 1331 governs federal-question jurisdiction in United States district courts and does not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims.

Hannon v. United States · filed 1993-08-19

The court notes that 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1346 are statutes which deal with the jurisdiction of United States District Courts and not with the jurisdiction of this court.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction disappears when the court disposes of the federal claims and only state-law claims remain.

Thrower v. Barney · filed 1994-03-30

Because this disposition causes the federal question jurisdiction of this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to disappear, the state law claims, if they have any merit, are due to be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint affirmatively seeks relief for claims arising under the Constitution, regardless of whether that relief is ultimately granted.

Exxon Corp. v. BD. OF ED. OF LAMAR COUNTY, MISS. · filed 1994-04-05

Exxon has asserted claims based upon the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Whether such relief is ultimately granted is not an issue in determining whether jurisdiction is proper and should be exercised by this Court. The Court finds that Exxon has sufficiently asserted claims arising under the Constitution of the United States such that jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a suit asserting federal constitutional claims against an agency, assuming the plaintiff has standing.

Wikberg v. Robert B. Reich, Secretary of Labor · filed 1994-05-06

The suit is within the jurisdiction of the federal courts (assuming Wikberg has standing to sue, of which more shortly) because it presents a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, not, as the parties believe, because the Administrative Procedure Act gives the federal courts jurisdiction to entertain suits against federal agencies; it does not.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over a federal claim even when a separate statute may direct review of that claim to a specialized court.

Sprague v. James B. King, Director of the Office of Personnel Management · filed 1994-07-05

Plaintiffs have raised a federal claim, so we have subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and the fact (if it is a fact) that a statute directs claims of this kind to the federal circuit rather than to the district courts and regional courts of appeals, is more in the nature of a venue rule (coupled with an obligation to exhaust administrative remedies) than of a limitation on jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction for claims arising under the Constitution, including claims seeking declaratory relief.

New Alliance Party v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 1994-07-28

Here, NAP seeks equitable relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act; it seeks no monetary damages. Further, the complaint clearly states that the action arises under the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, but jurisdiction is “founded on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.” Comp. ¶ 7. Since plaintiffs have pleaded constitutional claims, defendants’ motion on this ground is denied.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous claim of a federal statutory violation even when the existence of an implied private cause of action is unresolved.

Lake v. First Nationwide Bank · filed 1994-07-29

Given that one circuit court of appeals has found that an implied private cause of action does exist under § 10, ... and noting the absence of any guidance on this question by the Supreme Court or the Third Circuit, the Court concludes that the cause of action asserted by the Lakes is a non-frivolous cause of action sufficient to invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over constitutional claims when Congress has not clearly restricted judicial review of those claims.

Emily Oatman, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated v. Department of Treasury-Internal Revenue Service Unit · filed 1994-08-30

The district court also had jurisdiction to hear Oatman’s constitutional claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Congress did not clearly restrict jurisdiction over it.

Section 1331 supplies original federal-question jurisdiction when an amended complaint asserts claims under federal statutes.

Cades v. H & R Block · filed 1994-12-30

We need not address Cades's concern about the amount in controversy, for it is clear that after Cades amended his complaint to charge violations of the National Bank Act and the Truth in Lending Act, federal jurisdiction appeared on the face of his amended complaint. Had the action set forth in the amended complaint been brought initially in federal court, the district court would have had original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction for claims alleging violations of federal constitutional rights, including claims brought under § 1983.

Mummelthie v. City of Mason City, Iowa · filed 1995-01-09

Claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985, statutes providing for causes of action for violation of federal constitutional rights, require invocation of federal question jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over an action alleging violations of federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution.

Douglas v. Evans · filed 1995-05-12

Jurisdiction is proper, as Plaintiff alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 2000e et seq. (hereinafter “Title VIP’), the Equal Protection and Free Speech clauses of the United States Constitution as made applicable to the states by Amendment XIV, and 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (hereinafter “ADEA”).

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction when constitutional claims presented on removal are reasserted as active, ripe claims.

K. Hope, Inc. v. Onslow County · filed 1995-11-09

On removal, the questions were presented by defendant as ripe constitutional questions to support jurisdiction, and were reasserted as active, present claims by plaintiff. Id., at 21-22. Jurisdiction is thus conferred by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous claim arising under federal law even if the plaintiff may lose on the merits.

Saum v. Widnall · filed 1996-01-29

Federal jurisdiction exists if the complaint states a claim arising under federal law, even though on the merits the party may have no federal right.

Section 1331 permits dismissal for lack of federal-question jurisdiction when a purported federal claim is plainly immaterial and asserted solely to obtain jurisdiction.

Nachbaur v. St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center · filed 1996-06-25

Although Nachbaur's complaint explicitly invokes RICO, a claim brought under federal question jurisdiction may be dismissed if it "clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction." ... Thus, the district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of federal question jurisdiction.

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

Bickerstaff Clay v. Harris Cty., GA · filed 1996-07-16

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

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an action to confirm or vacate an arbitration award merely because the underlying arbitration involved a federal claim.

Collins v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan · filed 1996-08-29

However, the issue in Collins’ state court complaint was the confirmation of the arbitrated award, a right that was provided in the parties’ arbitration agreement and, thus, clearly a state law matter. As noted, neither the FAA nor the underlying arbitrated claim provide an independent basis of federal jurisdiction in an action to confirm or vacate an arbitration award. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction of this matter.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a petition concerning an arbitration agreement merely because the underlying claims submitted to arbitration arise under federal law.

Smith Barney, Incorporated v. Roger Sarver Concetta Sarver · filed 1997-02-28

In its complaint, Smith Barney asserted that jurisdiction was predicated on the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 4, because absent an agreement for arbitration, there would be federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on the federal securities laws. Our eases have made clear, however, that the Federal Arbitration Act does not supply an independent basis for federal jurisdiction, nor does the federal nature of the underlying claims that were submitted to arbitration.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over colorable federal securities fraud claims.

In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Sales Practices Litigation · filed 1997-03-17

Indeed, there is no dispute that the Court has exclusive “federal question” subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ federal securities fraud claims under 15 U.S.C. § 78aa and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs' federal securities laws claims are more than just “color-able;” they survived Prudential’s motion to dismiss.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over constitutional claims that are neither immaterial nor frivolous, even if those claims may fail on the merits.

Diehl v. Village of Antwerp · filed 1997-05-15

The Court finds that while it enjoys jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ § 1331 claims, it does not have jurisdiction over their § 1343(a)(4) claims. ... As was the case in Spencer, plaintiffs’ amended complaint plainly seeks recovery under the federal Constitution and asserts claims that are neither immaterial nor frivolous. Accordingly, the Court may entertain plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment claims.

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

Hernandez v. United States · filed 1997-07-30

Plaintiff erred when claiming federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, grants this court jurisdiction. The Court of Federal Claims does not possess federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction when a fair reading of the complaint raises federal claims, even if those claims are fatally defective.

Cruse v. Clear Creek I.S.D. · filed 1997-09-22

Even though Plaintiff denies federal jurisdiction in her Motion to Remand, a fair reading of her Complaint says otherwise, even though her federal claims are fatally defective.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint seeking relief under the United States Constitution unless the federal claim is clearly immaterial and made solely to obtain jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Villarreal v. Architecture · filed 1999-03-03

When, as in this case, a complaint seeks recovery directly under the United States Constitution, the court must entertain the suit 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.” ... It can hardly be said at this late date that the constitutional due process claim was “insubstantial” or “frivolous.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a contract funding claim that requires no interpretation of a federal statute or regulation.

United States v. Intervest Corp. · filed 1999-08-10

In the present case, Defendants have not cited any regulations that the Court must interpret. They simply allege that the existing regulations did not provide them with adequate contract rents and that those rents were insufficient to allow them to meet their contractual obligations.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a constitutional claim when the claimed right depends on how the Constitution is construed.

Levitt v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 1999-10-08

Levitt’s claim, therefore, “arises under” the Fifth Amendment because a construction of that provision favorable to him would result in his having the right to possession of the statue, whereas an adverse construction would produce the opposite result. In consequence, Levitt’s claim that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney, acting on behalf of the United States, are depriving him of property in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights comes within the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims that are obviously without merit or clearly foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.

John Corp. v. City of Houston · filed 2000-06-12

As we noted above, in order to invoke a federal court’s jurisdiction, claims cannot be “‘obviously without merit’” or “‘clearly foreclosed by the previous decisions of the United States Supreme Court.’”

Section 1331 gives a district court federal question jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of the federal Constitution or arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Leonard v. Dutchess County Department of Health · filed 2000-07-11

As an initial matter, we hold that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant action. Plaintiffs’ first claim for relief is based upon alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; plaintiffs’ second and fourth claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and plaintiffs’ third claim alleges violations of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Accordingly, this Court has federal question jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims that federal statutes infringe rights under the Spending Clause and the Fifth and Tenth Amendments.

Hodges v. Shalala · filed 2000-10-24

Here, the State claims that sections 652 through 655 of Title IV-D infringe upon its rights under the Spending Clause, as well as the Fifth and Tenth Amendments. It is well settled that these claims are within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when plaintiffs choose viable state-law claims and disclaim federal claims, even if they could have pleaded federal claims.

Caldwell v. American Home Products Corp. · filed 2002-07-03

The fact that plaintiff could have alleged viable federal claims is of no moment. By electing to disclaim all federal claims, plaintiffs will be precluded from trying federal claims in the state court, and will probably be precluded from ever presenting these possible federal claims, but that does not prevent plaintiff from being entitled to remand.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution even when relief on the claim is unavailable.

Klein v. Potter · filed 2002-08-20

We note, however, that lack of subject matter jurisdiction was an improper ground for dismissal. Federal courts have jurisdiction over all cases that, like Klein’s, arise under the Constitution, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Black v. United States · filed 2003-03-27

Inasmuch as the Court of Federal Claims is not a district court, plaintiffs cannot rely on federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Merritt Boulevard, Inc. v. Department of Permits & Development Management · filed 2003-04-22

At the time the Appellees removed this action to federal court, Appellants asserted claims under the United States Constitution. Thus, there was federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1994) and removal was appropriate.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint raises a claim under the Constitution or other federal law.

Hennessy v. City of Long Beach · filed 2003-04-25

This allegation raises a claim under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. ... As such, the complaint invokes federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff asserts constitutional violations.

Connell v. United States · filed 2003-06-30

Connell’s assertion of constitutional violations is sufficient to confer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint essentially alleges constitutional violations.

Janis v. Ashcroft · filed 2003-11-05

Properly understood, Janis's complaint essentially asserted constitutional violations rather than violations of the settlement agreement. We conclude that these allegations were sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.