28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a properly asserted unconstitutional conditions claim because it alleges infringement of a constitutional right.

RSWW Inc v. Harber · filed 2005-02-10

Clearly, a federal court has jurisdiction over a properly asserted unconstitutional conditions claim because it involves the infringement of a constitutional right.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction when constitutional claims are material to the requested relief and are not so plainly meritless as to warrant dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Shape v. Barnes County, ND · filed 2005-10-14

Here, the alleged violations of the Constitution are not immaterial; they are a major basis of the relief sought. Also, this Court cannot say that the constitutional causes of action are so patently without merit as to justify dismissal for want of jurisdiction.

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

Hall v. United States · filed 2005-10-31

The United States Court of Federal Claims, however, is not a United States District Court and, therefore, does not have jurisdiction over claims arising under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over a complaint alleging a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Berna v. City of Detroit · filed 2006-01-03

Counts 15 and 16 of the Complaint allege a violation of the Constitution of the United States. This alone presents a federal question, and therefore places this case in the original jurisdiction of the federal court.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims that state agency decisions are preempted by federal law or violate the United States Constitution.

Wheelabrator Lisbon Inc. v. State of Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control · filed 2006-06-23

The claims remaining before me do raise federal questions, namely, whether PURPA preempts the DPUC decisions at issue in this case and whether the DPUC decisions violate the United States Constitution. Accordingly, subject to the applicability of the Johnson Act, discussed below, I have subject matter jurisdiction over the present action.

Section 1331 does not give a federal court jurisdiction over a complaint that alleges no federal claim.

Wisconsin v. Amgen, Inc. · filed 2007-01-16

The State of Wisconsin could not have filed its original complaint in this case in federal court (a matter on which I ruled twice before the filing of the federal qui tarn action), because the complaint alleged no federal claim. On its own, the case was not removable and this court had no “original jurisdiction” over its subject matter.

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

McNeil v. United States · filed 2007-08-09

This statute is clearly inapplicable to the Court of Federal Claims, as the Court of Federal Claims is not a district court.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a civil action alleging a Fifth Amendment violation.

Rosenfield v. Wilkins · filed 2008-05-29

We hold, therefore, that the district court had jurisdiction over Rosenfield’s Fifth Amendment claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that this court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a colorable claim arising under federal law even when a statutory exemption may defeat the claim on the merits.

Smith v. Angel Food Ministries, Inc. · filed 2009-02-03

In this case, Plaintiffs invoked § 1331 jurisdiction by pleading a colorable claim arising under Title VII. If the statutory religious exemption is given one construction, Plaintiffs’ claims will be defeated; if it is given another, Plaintiffs’ claims will be sustained. Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims, and it would be inappropriate to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous federal claim even when the claim fails on the merits.

Conyers v. Rossides · filed 2009-03-03

We generally agree with this line of reasoning, but we conclude therefrom that the Administrator is entitled to judgment on the pleadings as to Conyers’s VEOA claims, not that the district court lacked jurisdiction over such claims, because Conyers’s allegations of veterans’ preference violations are not "frivolous.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction after the plaintiff withdraws the only federal claim.

Grills v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. · filed 2009-08-04

But Grills has dismissed any RICO claim; it follows that Grills has now dismissed all federal claims against Defendants and therefore may no ... longer claim federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a civil claim that a federal official’s proposed conduct would violate the Constitution.

United States v. Ghailani · filed 2009-11-18

That claim arises under the federal Constitution. It would come within the federal question jurisdiction of the district courts conferred by Section 1331 of the Judicial Code ... if it were brought as a free-standing civil action.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a federal claim discernible from the complaint even when the plaintiff does not name the federal cause of action.

Shea v. UNION FREE SCHOOL DIST. OF MASSAPEQUA · filed 2010-02-05

Also, although the plaintiffs fail to invoke the relevant statute by name, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides an avenue by which a party may sue for damages on this theory. Under the notice pleading standards, the Court thus construes the plaintiffs’ complaint as asserting this cause of action for jurisdictional purposes. As this claim is based on a federal statute and the United States Constitution, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the putative claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims to enforce tariffs filed and approved under federal law.

Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Global NAPs Inc. · filed 2010-08-25

It is well established that such a claim — to enforce the terms of a tariff, filed and approved pursuant to federal law — arises under federal law for the purpose of Article III and § 1331.

Federal-question jurisdiction may be absent when the federal claims offered to support it are patently without merit.

Peterson v. Ramirez · filed 2011-06-02

Sometimes, a case may be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if it is clear the claims on which jurisdiction is based are patently without merit.

Section 1331 no longer supplies federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff withdraws the federal claims.

Vurimindi v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals · filed 2011-10-12

The District Court properly concluded that, because Vurimin-di withdrew his federal claims,... it no longer possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over constitutional claims even when the plaintiff seeks state-law writ remedies.

Zaragoza v. Bennett-Haron · filed 2011-12-05

The properly pled Petition asserts seven claims, not two, all of which seek as a remedy either a writ of prohibition or mandamus. Three of those claims arise under the U.S. Constitution, where Petitioners allege the inquest ordinance violates the U.S. Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses. Three of the Petition’s claims therefore “arise under” federal law supporting removal, and the Court has remedial powers comparable to Petitioners’ requested relief, including declaratory and injunctive relief, to effectuate any judgment it renders in this action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a colorable federal claim even when a statutory element of the claim remains disputed.

Leeson v. Transamerica Disability Income · filed 2012-01-23

We begin by recognizing that federal courts have broad adjudicatory authority over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... By asserting a colorable claim that he is a plan participant, Leeson has satisfied the threshold for establishing federal court subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal claims.

Bryant v. Hutchinson Auto Mall · filed 2012-09-06

Thus, there was no federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a colorable federal constitutional claim unless the claim is frivolous or wholly insubstantial, even if it may fail on the merits.

De La Cruz v. Irizarry · filed 2013-04-12

Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) because of failure to state a federal constitutional claim is proper only if a court determines that the claim is “frivolous” or “so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.” ... As their complaint stands now, Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim barely survives a challenge under Rule 12(b)(1).

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over expressly pleaded federal constitutional claims without the substantial-question and alternative-theory inquiries applicable to state-law claims containing embedded federal questions.

Ortiz-Bonilla v. Federación De Ajedrez De Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2013-08-21

While the Chessplayers urge us to apply these inquiries to their first case, we cannot; the "substantial" element and "alternative theory" analyses are inapplicable in the present case because the Chessplayers pled in part an explicit federal question under the United States Constitution.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction on federal district courts and does not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims.

Rajapakse v. United States · filed 2013-10-23

Ms. Rajapakse attempts to invoke this court’s jurisdiction by citing four statutory provisions that apply only to federal district courts: ... 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2006) (conferring upon the federal district courts original jurisdiction over all civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”); ... Inasmuch as the Court of Federal Claims is not a federal district court, Ms. Rajapakse cannot rely upon any of the aforementioned statutes to establish this court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims after the plaintiff abandons his federal claims.

New York State Psychiatric Ass'n v. Unitedhealth Group · filed 2013-10-31

Because Kamins has abandoned his federal claims, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over Kamins’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction to district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims, and creates no substantive right to money damages against the United States.

Manuel v. United States · filed 2014-03-07

"'The United States Court of Federat Ctaims . . . is not a United States District Court and, therefore, does not have jurisdiction over claims arising under23 U.S.C. S 1331."' ... Moreover, as stated in DeVilbiss v. Small Business Administration, 661 F.2d 716 (8th Cir. 1981), Section 1331 is a jurisdictional statute that "do[es] not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages."

Section 1331 permits federal employees to seek equitable and declaratory relief for constitutional violations when they cannot obtain meaningful relief through a remedial plan that includes meaningful judicial review.

Semper v. Gomez · filed 2014-03-24

However, a federal employee who could not pursue meaningful relief through a remedial plan that includes some measure of meaningful judicial review has the right to seek equitable and declaratory relief for alleged constitutional violations in a ―federal question‖ action filed pursuant to § 1331.

Plausible federal constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 present a federal question sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Kitchen v. Herbert · filed 2014-06-25

Given our conclusion that subsequent doctrinal developments have rendered Baker no longer binding, such an assertion necessarily fails. We further note that because plaintiffs have filed plausible federal constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which specifically allows such claims to be filed in federal court, they have presented a federal question sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim, and although failure to state a claim does not necessarily defeat jurisdiction, merely invoking RICO without allegations supporting predicate offenses does not suffice.

Davison v. Grant Thornton LLP · filed 2014-09-03

When applying this standard, we have explained that “[t]he complaint must identify the statutory or constitutional provision under which the claim arises, and allege sufficient facts to show that the case is one arising under federal law.” Martinez v. U.S. Olympic Comm., 802 F.2d 1275, 1280 (10th Cir. 1986). ... Plaintiff’s complaint totally fails to set forth a RICO claim. In particular, it makes no attempt to identify predicate offenses under § 1961(1), and we can discern none. ... We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over federal due process claims, which they cannot relinquish as supplemental claims.

Brown v. City of Chicago · filed 2014-11-13

The second claim, however, is a garden-variety federal-law claim, and it is therefore within the original ju- risdiction of the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The judge was free to relinquish jurisdiction over the supplemen- tal claim, the challenge to the Police Board’s findings, but not over the original-jurisdiction claim, based on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 1331 permits federal employees excluded from CSRA judicial review to seek equitable relief for colorable constitutional claims absent sufficiently clear congressional intent to preclude such review.

Lamb v. Holder · filed 2015-03-10

Defendant has not pointed to language in the CSRA so expressly preclusive of colorable constitutional claims as to overcome the presumption against such preclusion. Given the D.C. Circuit’s expressed preference for keeping the courthouse doors open to federal employees raising constitutional claims, the Court finds it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear these constitutional due process claims under the grant of federal question jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims because that court is not a district court of the United States.

Ajamian v. United States · filed 2015-12-11

The Court of Federal Claims is not a district court of the United States, however. Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Section 1331 therefore does not confer on it jurisdiction over Mr. Ajamian’s suit.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over a colorable federal claim even if the complaint ultimately fails to state a claim for relief.

New England Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n v. Massachusetts Thoroughbred Horsemen's Ass'n · filed 2016-09-28

Plaintiffs assertion of a federal cause of action “cannot be said to be so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of [the First Circuit or Supreme Court], or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction” of this Court.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over pleaded federal securities claims when the federal issue is substantial and central to the dispute.

SFF-TIR, LLC v. Stephenson · filed 2017-04-25

The Supreme Court has imposed three restrictions on the phrase in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 that confers original jurisdiction to federal courts over claims “arising under” the Constitution and the laws of'the United States. ... Third, federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC rule 10b-5, see Complaint ¶¶ 25, 192-211, and federal laws are central to the claim, and not a mere ingredient in the claim, see 13D Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3562 (3d ed. 2017). Accordingly, the Court concludes that it has federal-question jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ federal securities claims.

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

Hallett v. State of Ohio · filed 2017-10-10

A claim that purports to arise under the Constitution or a federal statute may be dismissed if the alleged claim “clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” or if “such a claim is wholly unsubstantial and frivolous.” Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. v. Sanders, 138 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 1998) (quotations omitted). ... The district court did not err in dismissing Hallett’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Although Hallett alleged that jurisdiction was proper under Bivens, he failed to name any federal official as a defendant. As for §1983, he failed to allege that the defendants acted under color of state law, and failed to substantiate his claim with anything other than conclusory allegations.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a petition alleges federal constitutional violations and seeks relief for them, even if its count titles do not identify the federal claims.

RLR Investments, LLC v. City of Pleasant Valley, MO · filed 2019-04-03

The City argues that such general allegations in the body of the petition do not create grounds for removal, but it cites no support that it can remove based only on the title of the counts in a petition, not the underlying legal theories. Moreover, the initial petition made clear that RLR was challenging the ordinances under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States and Missouri Constitutions. RLR sought not only damages, but also a declaration that the ordinances were unconstitutional and an injunction against their enforcement. The federal court has jurisdiction over such claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when passing federal claims are immaterial and made to obtain jurisdiction over predominantly state-law claims.

Douse v. Metro Storage, LLC · filed 2019-05-14

Further, Douse’s claims predominantly involve Georgia contract, negligence, and landlord/tenant law, as demonstrated by his numerous references to those areas of law in his complaint, and his brief, passing references to his federal claims demonstrate that they are immaterial and made for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction in federal court.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction when the live complaint at removal asserts a claim created by federal law, including an ADA claim seeking federal relief.

Trevino v. Steinreal 1 Family Limited · filed 2019-09-16

In sum, Treviño’s Fifth Amended Petition, which is the live pleading in this case, states a claim created by the laws of the United States. Thus, this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case, and Treviño’s motions to remand should be denied.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a constitutional claim that has some color of merit even when the complaint fails to state a claim for relief.

Green v. KVC · filed 2019-11-26

And because plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim is not “lacking all color of merit,” this court must exercise its federal question subject-matter jurisdiction and dismiss plaintiff’s claim as improperly pled.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over an asserted federal claim is not lost merely because the claim fails on the merits; the court may dismiss it for failure to state a claim.

Estavillo v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. · filed 2019-12-05

However, rather than dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court dismisses the case for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims once all federal causes of action have been settled or dismissed.

ALOIA v. DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES · filed 2019-12-12

No federal causes of action remain, so the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over colorable claims arising under federal law even when those claims fail to state a claim for relief.

Hill v. PC · filed 2020-02-20

Hill's Complaint presents at least colorable claims that arise under two federal statutes, FDCPA and TILA. Thus, her Complaint will not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a federal constitutional question even when the asserted claim fails to state a cause of action.

Houck v. John Doe 1 · filed 2020-03-05

The Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 since it deals with a federal constitutional question, so dismissal should be for failure to state a claim ... pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint includes a claim arising under federal law.

Frank v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC · filed 2020-06-24

Federal-question jurisdiction exists if a plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint includes a claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 need not serve as the basis for federal-question jurisdiction when the only federal-law claim is facially meritless and likely to be dismissed, leaving a state-law claim.

Legaspy v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · filed 2020-08-13

The court does not rest jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because, as explained below, Legaspy’s only claim arising under federal law is facially meritless and likely to be dismissed on a proper motion, leaving only a state-law breach of contract claim.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Rust Rare Coin · filed 2020-08-20

Here, the complaint alleged that Rust Rare Coin violated federal securities laws (see Compl. ¶¶ 8, 21-78, 86-91), which creates federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction when the complaint alleges a claim under federal law, including an FDCPA claim.

KEYES v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC · filed 2020-10-16

The Complaint unquestionably includes three claims for violations of the FDCPA against Defendants Nationstar, U.S. Bank, and RAS Citron Law Offices, alleging no further facts than those already alleged as the bases for her state law claims. Accordingly, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claims are not viable.

Celece v. Dunn School · filed 2020-11-19

However, none of these claims appears viable, and as such, they do not appear to provide any basis for federal jurisdiction in this case.

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

Embrey v. United States · filed 2020-12-11

Section 1331 of title 28 confers “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” upon the federal district courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It does not apply to our court, however, and so does not provide the necessary jurisdiction to proceed.

A claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act establishes federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Blackwell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2021-01-28

The district court properly assumed subject matter jurisdiction over Blackwell’s action because Blackwell alleged a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and therefore the district court had federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over sufficiently colorable federal claims even if those claims ultimately fail to state a claim.

Chaturvedi v. Siddharth · filed 2021-02-19

Under the circumstances, the Court concludes that those claims are sufficiently colorable to confer federal-question jurisdiction, even if only barely so.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of federal constitutional rights under color of state law, even when the complaint does not identify the specific constitutional provisions.

Bullock El-Bey v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety · filed 2021-09-24

That the Plaintiff does not specifically identify the federal constitutional provisions at issue is not dispositive, as he is asserting the violation of his federal constitutional rights under the color of state law. ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that this case was properly removed from state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and 1331, and the Plaintiff's objection to removal is denied.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims raised in a complaint.

Fenn v. City Commission of Truth or Consequences · filed 2022-01-05

The Court has federal question, subject-matter jurisdiction over the federal constitutional claims raised in Plaintiff’s original Complaint.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims that state actors violated federal constitutional rights.

CLARK-PARKER v. ROWAN-SALISBURY SCHOOL SYSTEM · filed 2022-06-06

They do not discuss why the Court would not have subject matter jurisdiction over a lawsuit in which Ms. Clark-Parker claims her federal constitutional rights have been violated by state actors. See, e.g., Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 374 (1983) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction “to decide whether a cause of action is stated by a plaintiff's claim that he has been injured by a violation of the Constitution”). ... The Court has reviewed the matter, as it is required to do when subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, and concludes it has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over constitutional claims that present a federal question.

Cerf v. Parinello · filed 2022-07-01

Cerf’s request to remand this case to state court (Dkt. 12) will be denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because the request is untimely and because, as stated above, this Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject-matter jurisdiction over a First Amendment claim brought under § 1983.

Courthouse News Service v. Hamilton County Clerk of Courts · filed 2022-09-21

This Court, therefore, does not literally lack subject-matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”) (emphasis added).

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution.

Donovan v. Pangallo · filed 2022-10-26

Removal is proper where the court has federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 arising from alleged constitutional violations.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction when a complaint raises a federal constitutional claim.

(PC) Sanford v. Allison · filed 2022-11-03

Plainly, plaintiff has raised a federal claim over which this court has jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under the U.S. Constitution.

LAMIA v. THE BOROUGH OF PLUM · filed 2023-03-13

Here, Mr. Lamia’s state court action includes claims under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, see Compl. ⁋⁋ 22, 35-37, 88, 105, over which the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of the First and Eighth Amendments.

Jackson v. Mason · filed 2023-05-30

Here, Plaintiff’s state court action in Schuylkill County expressly includes claims under the First and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 8-9.) The Court has original jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that plainly challenges the constitutionality of a federal law, despite other arguable flaws in the claim.

Cusick v. U.S. Department of Justice · filed 2023-08-18

Regardless of other arguable flaws and procedural defects with the asserted claims, where Cusick’s claim plainly challenges the constitutionality of a federal law, the Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over Cusick’s claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint raising federal constitutional claims.

Coby v. Court of Criminal Appeals · filed 2023-09-14

Plaintiff raises federal constitutional claims in his complaint. Accordingly, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction when a complaint asserts claims under the U.S. Constitution at the time of removal.

Katchatag v. State of Alaska · filed 2024-02-29

The requirements for both federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state tort claims were met at the time the removal notice was filed in federal court.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of federal statutes or the Constitution.

Harrell v. California State University · filed 2024-08-16

As to Harrell’s claims alleging violations of federal statutory or constitutional law, this Court has federal question jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over a complaint alleging a federal constitutional due process claim.

(PC) Hill v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Dept. · filed 2025-07-29

The undersigned finds that jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and grants defendants’ request. ... Accordingly, plaintiff has raised a federal due process claim over which this court has jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits whose complaints raise federal constitutional claims.

Harris v. City of Willoughby, Inc. · filed 2025-07-30

Because he raised federal constitutional claims in his complaint, the Court had federal question jurisdiction over his lawsuit.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over constitutional claims arising under federal law.

Collision Towing and Auto Body, LLC v. Prince George's County, MD · filed 2025-08-19

The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims because they arise under federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.5 ECF No. 13, at 20-27; see 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A complaint alleging federal constitutional violations supports federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Dema v. Halikowski · filed 2025-10-21

The district court properly denied Dema’s motion to remand because in the operative complaint, Dema alleged federal constitutional violations, and defendant’s removal was timely.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim alleging a due process violation or challenging the constitutionality of a state statute.

Knisley v. Monroe · filed 1982-03-18

Plaintiffs correctly argue that an allegation that the right to due process has been violated presents a federal question and that the construction of the constitutionality of state statutes is within the jurisdiction of the federal court.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a constitutional damages claim against federal tax officials when the alleged conduct supports no implied Fourth or Fifth Amendment cause of action.

Seibert v. D. T. Baptist, District Director of Internal Revenue Service · filed 1979-05-03

Accordingly, it appears that the plaintiff has not asserted a claim “aris[ing] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the merits of the litigation.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over constitutional claims even when a comprehensive federal employee remedy means the claim fails to state a basis for relief.

Richards, Eugene R. v. Kiernan, Kathleen L. · filed 2006-08-25

The federal courts, of course, have jurisdiction to decide all cases “arising under the Constitu- tion.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Consequently, “the rule precluding constitutional claims by federal employees who have adequate administrative remedies stems from the absence of substantive legal rights rather than the courts’ lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Massey, 196 F.3d at 738.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over constitutional claims even when the Civil Service Reform Act precludes a Bivens remedy.

Eugene R. Richards, Jr. v. Kathleen L. Kiernan, Malcolm W. Brady, Edgar Domenech · filed 2006-08-25

The federal courts, of course, have jurisdiction to decide all cases “arising under the Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Supreme Court, however, has determined that it is inappropriate for the federal courts to supplement the comprehensive procedural and substantive remedies provided to federal employees under the CSRA.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims seeking relief under the U.S. Constitution.

Davis v. DeSantis · filed 2020-12-01

Undoubtedly, Plaintiff has raised a claim for relief based, in part, on the federal constitution and amendments to the federal constitution. This Court therefore has jurisdiction over such claims as permitted by § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a federal constitutional claim enforceable under § 1983, even if it also includes state-law claims.

Wilson v. Zuniga · filed 2025-04-07

The Court finds there is federal question jurisdiction in this case because the cause of action “aris[es] under the Constitution [and] law … of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides subject-matter jurisdiction over claims for relief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas · filed 1965-11-09

The Plaintiffs claim relief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. ... The Court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331.

A damages claim alleging that a municipality deprived the plaintiff of Fourteenth Amendment rights arises under the Constitution for purposes of § 1331(a), even though § 1983 does not support the claim against the municipality.

Perzanowski v. Salvio · filed 1974-01-04(a)

Section 1331(a) vests District Courts with original jurisdiction of civil actions arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Apart from the fourteenth amendment, the only “law” of the United States upon which the plaintiff relies is 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which will not support a claim against the municipal defendant. The complaint, however, alleges a deprivation by the defendant City of rights secured by the Due Process Clause and seeks damages far in excess of $10,000. Thus, to the extent that relief is sought under the fourteenth amendment, the plaintiff’s claim “arises under the Constitution ... of the United States,” and jurisdiction over the subject matter exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a claim alleging a taking in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gorelick v. Texas · filed 1983-02-23

Since a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment was alleged, ... federal question jurisdiction was properly invoked. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976).

Federal constitutional claims under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments fall within Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction.

Reeger v. Mill Service, Inc. · filed 1984-09-12

The complaint asserts causes of action on federal constitutional questions under the 5th and 14th Amendments, which gives jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and causes of action under the Federal Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1986 which gives jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims that a state official, sued individually, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Crosetto v. State Bar of Wisconsin · filed 1994-01-24

Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against Mr. Smay, the Executive Director of the Wisconsin State Bar, sued in his individual capacity for- allegedly violating Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

1995 Venture I, Inc. v. ORANGE COUNTY, TEXAS · filed 1996-11-14

In this case, Plaintiffs claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution are sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction ... and withstand a “facial attack” on the complaint.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over a civil action asserting a Fourteenth Amendment claim.

Griffin v. State of Hawaii · filed 2021-02-09

Griffin’s claims are based on the Fourteenth Amendment. This court has “original jurisdiction [over] all civil actions arising under the Constitution[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over § 1983 claims alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(PC)Hamilton v. Allison · filed 2021-10-08

As to Plaintiff’s eighth and ninth claims against KVSP officials, Plaintiff is bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The Court has jurisdiction over these claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”); see also and 1343(a)(3) (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: [] To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.”).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a federal prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim against federal prison officials.

McEachern v. Civiletti · filed 1980-12-04

The Court finds jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over claims based on the Eighth Amendment.

Crespo v. Carvajal · filed 2020-11-30

However, Crespo’s claims are based on a federal question, and thus this Court may properly exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a civil action asserting an Eighth Amendment claim.

Moore v. Oregon Department of Corrections · filed 2021-06-01

First, Plaintiffs assert an Eighth Amendment claim under the United States Constitution, which raises a federal question under 28 § U.S.C. 1331.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction when allegations raise a question under the Fourth Amendment.

Belle Fourche Pipeline Co. v. United States · filed 1983-01-20

This gives rise to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, since the allegations raise a question under the Fourth Amendment.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a broadly construed complaint alleges that a defendant participated in a Fourth Amendment violation.

Banks v. Department of Motor Vehicles · filed 2006-02-17

Construing plaintiffs complaint broadly, plaintiff alleges defendant Jones participated in a violation of plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights. See, e.g., Complaint, ¶ 16. Therefore, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over defendant Jones, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and his motion for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) should be denied.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a complaint presents a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim.

THREAT v. LaSALLE COUNTY · filed 2011-03-09

To be clear, federal jurisdiction exists. While Threat’s complaint is far from a model of legal draftsmanship, it does contain a federal claim which confers jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A state agency's alleged breach while exercising only contractual rights does not become a Fourteenth Amendment deprivation and therefore does not create § 1331 jurisdiction.

John & Sal's Automotive Service, Inc. v. Sinclair Refining Co. · filed 1958-09-16

The vital distinction between the situation at bar and the cases in which notice and hearing are required is that the agencies were not here exercising any governmental function. It is the exercise of such a function that brings into play the “notice and hearing” requirement of the due process clause. ... Accordingly, this Court has no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1952).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a private dispute merely because the complaint invokes the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments without alleging state action by the defendants.

Grossbard v. President Container, Inc. · filed 1993-01-07

Plaintiffs cannot simply invoke the federal constitution in a private action and expect this assertion to confer jurisdiction on this Court. There is no federal question involved in this case and hence no jurisdiction based on § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when a § 1983 claim fails to allege that the defendants acted under color of state law.

TUCKER v. SIMON · filed 2022-10-11

Federal question jurisdiction does not furnish a basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this matter because none of the Defendants are alleged to have been acting under color of state law as required to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a constitutional claim against a broadcaster when the challenged conduct lacks state action.

CENT. NY RIGHT TO LIFE v. Radio Station WIBX · filed 1979-03-19

Relief is sought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, subject matter jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is employed in an effort to obtain general federal question jurisdiction. ... The Court is therefore unable to find the requisite state action upon which its subject matter jurisdiction ultimately depends.

A Section 1331(a) plaintiff need not precisely frame a takings claim at the pleading stage when the alleged state conduct could amount to a constitutional taking.

Katz v. State of Connecticut · filed 1969-11-19(a)

Failure of the plaintiff to trim his claim nicely within the contour of the constitutional prohibition against the taking of his property without payment of just compensation furnishes no adequate ground for dismissing it for lack of federal question jurisdiction. ... The presence of a federal question for purposes of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) is sufficiently pleaded.

Allegations that redevelopment activity effected a de facto taking without just compensation raise a serious constitutional question sufficient for Section 1331 jurisdiction.

Eleopoulos v. Richmond Redevelopment Agency · filed 1972-11-20

Plaintiffs have filed an action alleging a de facto taking of their property by ... defendants without just compensation in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments. Jurisdiction is alleged under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... These allegations raise a serious constitutional question which confers jurisdiction on this Court and states a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a serious claim that state urban-renewal activity took property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Muskegon Theatres, Inc., a Michigan Corporation v. City of Muskegon, a Municipal Corporation, and the Amazon Company, a · filed 1974-12-05

Of course, parties cannot stipulate the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts. Arenas v. United States, 95 F.Supp. 962, 972 (S.D.Cal.1951), aff’d, 197 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1952). See United States v. Anderson, 503 F.2d 420 (6th Cir. 1974), Mill Owners Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 141 F.2d 763, 766 n. 1 (8th Cir. 1944), Commonwealth ex rel. Woods v. Cavell, 157 F.Supp. 272, 276-277 (W.D. Pa.1957), aff’d, 254 F.2d 816 (3rd Cir. 1958). But an alleged “taking” in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments presents a “serious constitutional question,” Foster v. Herley, 330 F.2d 87 (6th Cir. 1964), Eleopoulos v. Richmond Development Agency, 351 F.Supp. 63, 64 (N.D.Cal.1972), clearly within the district court’s “federal question jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1970).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a constitutional takings claim that is unripe for adjudication.

Quality Refrigerated Services, Inc. v. City of Spencer · filed 1995-11-02

Quality Refrigerated’s Taking Clause claim does not serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction in this case because of its Taking Clause claim is not ripe for adjudication.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over First and Fourteenth Amendment claims based solely on private conduct.

DEPACK v. CAPONEGRO · filed 2023-05-22

Therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under the federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over USERRA claims brought by an individual against a state employer.

Kinnune v. State of Washington · filed 2025-02-21

Further, the Ninth Circuit has held that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not grant federal courts jurisdiction over USERRA claims brought against a state by an individual. ... While Defendants argue that this Ninth Circuit precedent may be abrogated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Mims v. Arrow Financial Services and other Supreme Court decisions, ECF No. 163, the Court must follow the Ninth Circuit’s precedent in Townsend. ... In conclusion, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and remands the case to Thurston County Superior Court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a constitutional claim against a private entity when the complaint alleges no facts showing action under color of state law.

Gilot · filed 2026-01-28

Here, Plaintiff alleges no facts to support the inference that Aldi—a private entity—acted under color of state law. The Court thus lacks subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of federal question.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory claim that a state court’s attempt to bind a nonparty to an injunction violated federal due process.

Silent Drive, Inc. v. Strong Industries, Inc. And Brooks Strong · filed 2003-04-16

The plaintiff has properly alleged federal subject matter jurisdiction over Count I. The plaintiff made clear in its complaint that its claims arose in part under federal question jurisdiction, (Compl. at 3), which includes “all civil actions arising under the Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2000). Although it does not mention a source of law, a fair reading of Count I discloses a claim that the Texas state court’s attempt to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiff violated federal due process because the plaintiff was “a non-party to the Texas case, and a person who was not notified, on whom process was not served, and over whom jurisdiction was not present.” (Compl. at 7).

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims that Puerto Rico governmental action violates the federal constitutional guarantee of due process.

Mora v. Mejias · filed 1953-07-24

But the overriding federal constitutional guaranty of due process of law may be vindicated in the federal courts, and ultimately of course by the Supreme Court of the United States. The terms of the compact, under which the Commonwealth government was established, did not disturb the jurisdiction of the federal courts, as provided in the Judicial Code, Title 28 U.S.C. We agree that the court below had jurisdiction of the present complaint.

An equal-protection claim alleging intentional discriminatory taxation arises under federal law and supports jurisdiction under § 1331.

Southland Mall, Incorporated v. Garner · filed 1968-10-03

We therefore conclude that plaintiff has stated a claim for relief under the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution with respect to which this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives jurisdiction to decide whether state condemnation activity deprived property owners of federal due process or just-compensation rights.

Thomas E. Foster and Georgia Lee Foster, and Cross-Appellants v. City of Detroit, Michigan, and Cross-Appellee · filed 1968-12-11

The City of Detroit’s action can properly be considered state action and the accomplishment of what it claimed it had the right to do would indeed be a deprivation of plaintiffs’ property “without due process of law” and if the city’s aborted condemnation was a “taking” it was to be carried on “without just compensation”, thus would it offend the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provided Federal jurisdiction to vindicate those rights.

A claim that property was taken without due process or just compensation presents a federal question within Section 1331.

Jim Young Development Corp. v. State Highway Commission · filed 1971-07-22

The applicable rule regarding federal jurisdiction under § 1331, Title 28, United States Code, of condemnation actions such as that at bar is that the question of whether property was taken without due process of law or just compensation constitutes a “federal question” within the meaning of that statute.

A due-process claim under Section 1331 requires significant state involvement, and state statutes authorizing private self-help repossession can provide enough state action to raise a federal question.

Adams v. Egley · filed 1972-02-11

The federal question purportedly raised here is whether the summary repossession of plaintiffs' property constitutes a taking without due process of law. ... It is fundamental, therefore, that for jurisdiction to lie on either ground, some significant state involvement in the alleged wrongful acts must be shown; the conduct of private individuals, however wrongful or discriminatory, does not come within the purview of those sections if the state has in no way authorized, sanctioned, or encouraged it. ... It is therefore apparent that the acts of repossession were made “under color of state law” as required by the Civil Rights statutes, and that the passage of Sections 9503 and 9504, which authorize such acts are sufficient state action to raise a federal question.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over a due-process claim alleging substantial monetary loss from a state official's interference with property.

ALWIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. Lufkin · filed 1973-06-28

Since the inability to sell lots has deprived Alwin of substantial sums of money which would have constituted the proceeds of such sales, jurisdiction exists under both 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over constitutional due process claims arising from a custody dispute when the claims are neither jurisdictional pretexts nor wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Oltremari Ex Rel. McDaniel v. Kansas Social & Rehabilitative Service · filed 1994-11-21

The claimed violations of due process in this case do not clearly appear immaterial or solely made to bestow jurisdiction upon this court. Nor do they appear wholly insubstantial and frivolous. Section 1331, therefore, provides a basis for jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over a claim alleging a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause.

Zuniga v. Blue Cross And Blue Shield Of Michigan · filed 1995-05-02

Alleging a violation of the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution provides original federal question jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (1988), over Count II.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over federal due process claims raised in the plaintiff’s complaint.

Hanna v. City of Chicago · filed 2002-07-25

In this case, there is no question that Hanna’s state court complaint raises issues of federal law in the form of two federal due process claims in Counts I and III. These claims turn on federal law and unquestionably fit within the removal rule.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff alleges a violation of constitutional due process rights.

Hantzis v. Grantland · filed 2009-04-01

Plaintiff claims, however, that the defendants violated his rights under the due process clause of the Constitution, thereby stating a basis for federal court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims that federal officials violated the Fifth Amendment and federal agency regulations.

Ramon v. Soto · filed 1990-10-02

Plaintiffs asserted below that defendants' conduct violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and specific procedural requirements imposed by BIA regulations. The district court thus had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (1988).

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over a Fifth Amendment due process challenge to the notice provided in an administrative forfeiture.

Montgomery v. Scott · filed 1992-09-17

His claim rests on his due process rights arising from the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. Consequently, I find, as have other courts, that subject matter jurisdiction arises from 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint alleging a violation of Fifth Amendment due process rights by a federal officer.

Church of Scientology Int'l v. Kolts · filed 1994-02-16

Because Plaintiff states a claim arising under the Constitution (Plaintiff contends its Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated), Plaintiffs complaint meets the requirement of “arising under” the Constitution required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim arising under the Tenth Amendment.

Treasurer State NJ v. US Dept Treas · filed 2012-06-27

In considering the effect of this claim with respect to federal jurisdiction we start from the unquestioned principle that jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when a cause of action arises under federal law on the basis of the plaintiff having made a claim under the Tenth Amendment.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim arising under the Tenth Amendment.

Treasurer of New Jersey v. United States Department of the Treasury · filed 2012-06-27

In considering the effect of this claim with respect to federal jurisdiction we start from the unquestioned principle that jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when a cause of action arises under federal law on the basis of the plaintiff having made a claim under the Tenth Amendment.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction for a Fifth Amendment takings claim.

Baker v. City of McKinney · filed 2023-10-11

The district court was therefore correct to hold that it had federal-question jurisdiction in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a controversy alleging denial of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Greater Fremont, Inc. v. City of Fremont · filed 1968-12-30

This Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 since the controversy involves questions of whether the plaintiff corporations are being denied due process and the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a Section 1983 action alleging that county officials violated the Equal Protection Clause by denying building permits for racially discriminatory reasons.

Crow v. Brown · filed 1971-10-27

Plaintiffs contend that by such action the County has violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and they seek declaratory and injunctive relief. Suits of this nature are authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1964) and the Court finds it has jurisdiction on several bases, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3), (4).

Section 1331 authorizes review of a constitutional claim that a federal official construed and applied a federal statute in a way that denied equal protection.

National Alliance of Postal & Federal Employees v. Klassen · filed 1974-01-22

With this in mind, we have determined that the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review Plaintiffs’ constitutional allegations insofar as these charges require the Court to determine whether, in continuing to accord exclusive representation to the national craft unions beyond the expiration of the transitional bargaining period, the Postmaster General construed and applied Chapter 12 of the Postal Reorganization Act in a manner that denied Plaintiff union and the individual Plaintiffs the equal protection of the law.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over ripe substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection claims arising from alleged precondemnation conduct.

Picard v. Bay Area Regional Transit District · filed 1993-05-11

In addition to their taking claims, plaintiffs allege in their second cause of action that BART deprived them of their rights to substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection. Jurisdiction over these types of claims is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3). ... Having met the finality requirement, plaintiffs’ substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection claims are ripe for federal adjudication. The court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over equal protection claims because they arise under the Constitution.

Pehnke v. City of Galveston · filed 1997-09-24

Plaintiff argues in his Motion to Remand that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction; however, equal protection claims clearly arise under the Constitution as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an Equal Protection claim against private defendants who are not state actors.

Cowtown Foundation Inc v. U.S. Department of Agriculture · filed 2022-11-01

Accordingly, in addition to lacking federal question jurisdiction to consider the claim because Association Defendants are not state actors, the Court also lacks diversity jurisdiction because Plaintiffs did not plead an amount-in-controversy over $75,000.

Section 1331 provides ordinary federal-question jurisdiction over Fourth Amendment claims seeking the return of property seized by federal officers, without a heightened anomalous-jurisdiction threshold.

Hearn v. Internal Revenue Agents · filed 1984-10-09

Given this result, anomalous jurisdiction exists only as a theoretical construct for jurisdictional trivia fans and does not present a heightened threshold to the entertaining of this case.. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over a civil action arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Pitts v. Black · filed 1984-10-09

2. Jurisdiction is further conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as a civil action arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under the Uniform Relocation Act.

Day v. City of Dayton, Ohio · filed 1984-10-23

1. The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under the Uniform Relocation Act pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that federal tax laws and regulations are unconstitutional, although not every aspect of the claim is cognizable under that jurisdiction.

Cameron v. Internal Revenue Service · filed 1984-09-25

A second possible source of jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal question jurisdiction statute. Plaintiff claims, at least in part, that the tax laws do not apply to him because the laws and regulations are unconstitutional. This is sufficient to give rise to some kind of federal question jurisdiction based on the constitutional issues involved in such a claim. However, not all aspects of the plaintiffs claim are cognizable under this jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union Local 54 v. Read · filed 1984-11-05

The plaintiffs’ allegations asserting denial of their rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments properly invoke this court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 (West Supp.1984).

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim alleging that state officials, acting under color of state law, deprived recipients of rights guaranteed by federal law or the Constitution.

Lacey Ex Rel. Brookins v. Cohen · filed 1984-11-05

Plaintiffs’ suit is properly before this court since they claim that defendants’ alleged failure to provide recipients timely and adequate notice of copayment constituted a deprivation under color of state law of rights guaranteed by federal law or the Constitution. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a Section 1983 constitutional challenge to a municipal ordinance.

American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut · filed 1984-11-19

1. This Court has jurisdiction of this cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(3), and 1343(4), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and the Court need not abstain from jurisdiction because the subject Ordinance is not susceptible to limiting constructions.

Section 1331 is a jurisdictional counterpart to constitutional claims brought under § 1983 and supports denial of a motion to dismiss those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Stewart v. Hunt · filed 1984-11-28

Defendants’ 12(b)(1) motion alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction is also DENIED, as 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343 have long been recognized as the jurisdictional counterparts to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions brought under the Constitution.

Section 1331 supports federal jurisdiction when the complaint includes a claim under the federal Constitution.

Walker v. Gibson · filed 1985-02-14

Second, as is usually the case, after removal to federal district court, plaintiff expanded his complaint, adding a claim under the federal constitution. Hence, removal based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 would have been proper as well.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a Bivens action against federal officials and a claim for nonmonetary constitutional relief.

Doe v. United States Department of Justice · filed 1985-03-01

... they unquestionably fall within the district courts’ general federal question jurisdiction. ... 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over nonfrivolous constitutional and federal statutory claims.

Industrial Park Development Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency · filed 1985-03-21

Of course, there is no question that a federal district court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to consider the important questions arising under the Constitution and statutes of the United States presented by IPDC’s claim for relief. The court has jurisdiction to determine if it has jurisdiction so long as the issues raised are not frivolous.

Section 1331 permits a district court to hear a constitutional claim on Social Security review even without exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Barry v. Heckler · filed 1985-04-18

The Court finds the Secretary’s position wholly untenable as it not only contravenes the jurisdictional statute found at 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but also offends a strong line of authority which holds that a district court may hear constitutional claims on review, even absent an exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject-matter jurisdiction over complaints that plainly assert claims arising under the Constitution.

McIntyre v. O'NEILL · filed 1985-05-09

That section provides: “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. There can be no dispute that plaintiffs’ cause of action “aris[es] under the Constitution.”

Section 1331 covers a substantial claim whose outcome depends on resolving a dispute about the validity, construction, or effect of the Constitution.

Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. · filed 1985-06-18

A case arises under the Constitution of the United States “if it clearly and substantially involves a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction or effect of ... [the Constitution] ... which is determinative of the resulting judgment.”

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous federal statutory claim when the pleaded facts are sufficient to present that claim even if the complaint does not label every recoverable element expressly.

Adams v. Republic Steel Corp. · filed 1985-10-31

Although plaintiffs have not specifically alleged that they have incurred response costs recoverably under CERCLA, this court finds that they have alleged sufficient facts to warrant a finding that a claim has been stated “arising under” CERCLA. To the extent that plaintiffs may have suffered actual injury that may be remedied by an award of response costs, it cannot be said that their claim is immaterial or wholly insubstantial. Accordingly, this court finds that subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and defendants’ motion to dismiss the CERCLA claim under Rule 12(b)(1) is denied.

Section 1331 requires only a plausible, colorable claim arising under federal law, not advance proof that the claimant will prevail on the federal merits.

Rollins Environmental Services (Fs), Inc. v. The Parish Of St. James · filed 1985-11-01

For a finding of federal question jurisdiction it is not incumbent on the party asserting jurisdiction to prove in advance that it will ultimately prevail on the merits of its federal claims. ... Rather, the party asserting jurisdiction need only advance plausible, colorable claims that "arise under" federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over controversies arising under the Constitution and federal law.

American Petrofina Co. of Texas v. Nance · filed 1986-04-24

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this controversy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; this case presents a controversy arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Section 1331 helps confer subject-matter jurisdiction when properly stated federal securities or RICO claims survive dismissal.

Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Kerr · filed 1986-06-13

The Defendants concede that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1819, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, and 15 U.S.C. § 78aa if the FDIC properly states a claim for relief under federal securities laws or RICO. Since the Court has concluded that the FDIC’s RICO and securities fraud claims should not be dismissed at this point, the above-mentioned statutes properly confer subject matter jurisdiction upon this Court and Defendant’s Motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be denied.

A claim brought directly under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act invokes federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Moore v. Warwick Public School District No. 29, a Public Corporation · filed 1986-06-13

Because the allegations in count II of the complaint state a claim directly under section 504, thus invoking the federal question jurisdiction of the District Court, ... U.S.C. § 1331, the court erred in dismissing that count.

Actions invoking the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act to declare parental rights arise under federal law within the meaning of Section 1331.

Davis v. Davis · filed 1986-06-25

Though that does not on its face create a federal cause of action to enforce child custody decrees, every Court of Appeals that has considered the issue has held actions invoking PKPA to declare parents’ rights “arise under” that statute within the meaning of the federal-question jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331: ... This Court agrees.

Section 1331 permits a federal court to resolve conflicting state custody determinations under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act for the limited purpose of deciding which state had authority.

Olmo v. Olmo · filed 1986-10-27

Plaintiff, the father of a child, brought this action pursuant to the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (the Act), 28 U.S.C. 1738A (1982), asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982), giving the district courts federal question jurisdiction. ... Because both Colorado and New York have asserted jurisdiction and have made conflicting custody determinations, the court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to the Act for the limited purpose of deciding which state had power under the Act to decide custody of the child.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over a claim created by federal statute even when that statute supplies the exclusive substantive remedy.

Johnson v. United States Postal Service · filed 1986-11-07

Defendant maintains that plaintiff’s reliance on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as grounds for jurisdiction is improper because Title VII has been held to be an exclusive remedy for civil rights actions. To say that Title VII is an exclusive remedy for discrimination in cases involving federal employment merely denies relief under other general federal tort statutes. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers jurisdiction on this court regardless of the general or exclusive nature of the underlying action providing the cause of action was created by federal statute. Because plaintiff has stated a claim for relief which arises under a federal statute, I have subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

Section 1331 provides original jurisdiction over claims that state action violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Smith v. Board of School Com'rs of Mobile County · filed 1987-03-19

Such federal constitutional claims constitute a case or controversy within this Court’s original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Sections 1331 and 1362 can provide subject-matter jurisdiction over a tribe's federal statutory counterclaim independently of the Surface Mining Act's citizen-suit provision.

New Mexico v. Department of Interior · filed 1987-06-05

The district court correctly recognized the dual nature of the Navajo counterclaim. It concluded that venue over the Surface Mining Act claims was controlled by 30 U.S.C. sec. 1270(c) but that subject matter jurisdiction, based upon 28 U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1362, and independent of the citizens suits provision of the Surface Mining Act, gave it authority to consider and decide the counterclaim.

Section 1331 provides original jurisdiction over a union member's claim that the union breached its federal duty of fair representation.

Stallcop v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals the Permanente Medical Group, Inc. Hospital & Institutional Workers Un · filed 1987-06-23

Since the action “arises under” a federal law, the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over Stallcop’s suit.