28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a federal takings claim that remains premature because the plaintiff has not used an available and adequate state inverse-condemnation remedy.

Union Pacific R. Co. v. State of Idaho · filed 1987-06-25

The availability of the state inverse condemnation action, absent a showing that such an action is inadequate to protect a plaintiff’s constitutional interest, is sufficient to satisfy the mandates of the fifth amendment. … Accordingly, federal question jurisdiction does not exist pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an EPA civil-enforcement action arising under RCRA, alongside the United States-plaintiff jurisdiction supplied by Section 1345.

United States v. Rogers · filed 1987-10-02

Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 empowers federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under federal law. In addition, 28 U.S.C. § 1345 provides that district courts have original jurisdiction over actions commenced by the United States or by agencies or officers thereof authorized by Congress to commence such actions.

Section 1331 covers a constitutional challenge to a congressionally approved federal covenant because the challenge arises under federal law and the Constitution.

Hillblom v. United States · filed 1988-01-22

Plaintiffs' challenge to the Covenant falls within the purview of §1331 because" the Covenant is a federal law (P.L. 94-241, 90 Stat. 263), approved by Congress, and signed by the President. Further, plaintiffs allege that certain sections of the Covenant violate the United States Constitution, allegatioi^j which clearly fall within 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a claim that a territorial election-disqualification statute violates the federal Equal Protection Clause.

Torres v. Comision Estatal De Elecciones De Puerto Rico · filed 1988-09-23

Here, plaintiff alleges that 21 L.P.R.A. sect. 3001(a)(6), which disqualifies those people who have “been dismissed from a position or employment for improper conduct in the performance of [their] duties” from running for mayor, violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. As such, this allegation raises a federal question, and the jurisdiction of this Court over the instant case is assured under 28 U.S.C. sect. 1331.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of federal constitutional rights.

Blue Sky Entertainment, Inc. v. Town of Gardiner · filed 1989-04-19

The court holds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over Counts 1, 5, and 7 of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction.

A constitutional challenge to federal district-court admission rules arises under federal law within Section 1331, and which district court should hear it is a venue question rather than a jurisdictional one.

Giannini v. Real · filed 1989-04-20

Defendants offer no law to support this conclusion. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” This action obviously arises under the federal Constitution. Which district court is a proper forum is a question of venue, not one of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to hear constitutional claims challenging Senate impeachment procedures.

Hastings v. US Senate, Impeachment Trial Com. · filed 1989-07-05

The Court has jurisdiction to hear at least the constitutional aspects of Judge Hastings’ complaint under its general federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over causes of action implied directly from provisions of the Bill of Rights.

American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi, Inc. v. Mabus · filed 1989-07-27

A cause of action for certain violations of the Bill of Rights can be implied directly from the U.S. Constitution, with jurisdiction premised on the federal question statute.

Section 1331 grants jurisdiction over claims alleging direct violations of the federal Constitution.

Figueroa v. Molina · filed 1989-10-25

Similarly, the direct constitutional violations pleaded by plaintiff suffice to sustain the grant of jurisdiction under the general federal question statute, Section 1331.

Section 1331 generally provides jurisdiction over adequately alleged constitutional violations, but jurisdiction cannot rest on the mere citation of a federal statute without supporting allegations.

Weller v. Department Of Social Services For The City Of Baltimore · filed 1990-04-24

Federal jurisdiction may not be premised on the mere citation of federal statutes. ... We also note that federal jurisdiction generally exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 for constitutional violations, but as discussed below, we uphold the dismissal of all claims against the state defendants because such suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A constitutional freedom-of-association challenge to municipal restrictions presents a federal question cognizable under § 1331.

Atkins v. City of Charlotte · filed 1969-02-25

This is a federal question of constitutional dimension. Since 1875 the federal courts have been the primary forum for vindicating every right given by the Constitution, the laws and treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over an independent action alleging that a city's effort to prohibit a film violates Section 1983 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Grove Press, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia · filed 1969-05-20

It is clear as well that there is federal jurisdiction over this case pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, since Grove Press has charged that the City’s attempt to prohibit the exhibition of “I Am Curious — Yellow” constitutes a violation of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

Allegations that Army regulations deprived speakers and leafleters of First Amendment rights were sufficient to establish Section 1331 jurisdiction.

Spock v. David · filed 1972-10-12

These allegations are sufficient to establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a First Amendment challenge to a local obscenity ordinance, while related state-law claims fall within pendent jurisdiction.

Moses v. County of Kenosha, a Body Politic and Corporate · filed 1987-08-17

The former claim is within the jurisdiction of the federal courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the latter within the court’s pendent claim jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a First Amendment claim against private defendants who are not alleged to have acted under color of state law.

Harr v. WRAL-5 News · filed 2021-01-14

First, Plaintiff's First Amendment allegations fail to invoke federal-question jurisdiction because Defendants are non-state actors and are not alleged to have acted under color of state law.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over First Amendment claims challenging federal grant terminations, even when the dispute involves federal grants.

American Academy of Pediatrics v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services · filed 2026-01-11

Such claims fall squarely in this Court’s jurisdictional grant. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution . . . of the United States.”). Nowhere in DOE or APHA does the Supreme Court hint, let alone express the view, that parties, such as AAP here, have no forum in district court to hear First Amendment claims merely because the cases involve federal grants.

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction when a complaint raises questions under a federal statute and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Presser v. Brennan · filed 1975-02-27(a)

Jurisdiction is asserted by the plaintiff, and it is determined that jurisdiction exists, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), since the complaint raises questions under section 411 of the Pension Reform Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

A constitutional claim ordinarily requires § 1331 as its jurisdictional basis because the Constitution does not itself confer federal jurisdiction.

The Ripon Society, Inc. v. National Republican Party the Ripon Society, Inc. v. National Republican Party · filed 1975-04-28

Since the Constitution does not normally confer jurisdiction by itself, we take that assertion of jurisdiction to be grounded in the general “federal question” statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1970).

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists over a public-college employee's claim that adverse employment action retaliated against activity protected by the First Amendment.

Shaw v. Board of Trustees of the Frederick Community College · filed 1975-04-25

As to the allegations of the complaint that the actions against them were retaliation by the college against activity on the part of the plaintiffs protected by the First Amendment, jurisdiction unquestionably lies.

Section 1331 supplied jurisdiction over a Fifth Amendment equal-protection challenge to sex discrimination by a federally chartered organization.

Stearns v. Veterans of Foreign Wars · filed 1975-04-29

Specifically: (1) jurisdiction exists in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; (2) the statutory charter of the VFW, 36 U.S.C. § 111 et seq., does not mandate discrimination on the basis of sex, and to the extent that plaintiff now argues that said statute authorizes or encourages discrimination on the basis of sex, this Court finds that it does not; and (3) Congressional chartering alone does not constitute the kind of significant government involvement in private discriminations that is violative of the equal protection guarantee in the due. process clause of the 5th Amendment.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over claims that federal officials violated a plaintiff's constitutional rights.

John N. Flood, M.D., J.D. v. Harrington · filed 1976-03-19

The district court had subject matter jurisdiction as to the remaining defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of the Constitution and federal civil-rights statutes.

Marin City Council v. Marin County Redevelopment Agency · filed 1976-04-30

Further, the court reaffirms its ruling that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the present controversy. ... the court not only premised its jurisdiction on the Administrative Procedure Act but also on 28 U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1343(4). Since plaintiffs’ claims now rest solely on defendants’ alleged violations of the constitution and federal civil rights statutes, these two jurisdictional statutes vest the court with subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a federal employee's due-process claim based on a cognizable liberty or property interest in continued employment.

Tufts v. United States Postal Service · filed 1976-12-14

Plaintiff Tufts possessed a cognizable liberty-property interest in her expectation of continued federal employment. ... Jurisdiction for such a claim is proper based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims by United States citizens arising from federal conduct in the Trust Territory even though Sections 1343 and 1346 do not apply.

Thompson v. Kleppe · filed 1976-12-15

Plaintiffs further allege jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1346. A reading of these sections indicates that this Court has jurisdiction under § 1331, but not under §§ 1343 or 1346.

A cause of action created by a federal statute governing wrongful deaths in federal enclaves arises under federal law for Section 1331 jurisdiction even when state substantive law supplies the rule of decision.

Quadrini v. Sikorsky Aircraft Division, United Aircraft Corp. · filed 1977-01-06

Even if the federal statute provided no clue as to the content or source of applicable substantive law, a suit under § 457 would arise under federal law sufficiently to have jurisdiction supplied by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a federal constitutional claim is not defeated merely because state courts are also available to hear the claim.

Holladay v. Roberts · filed 1977-01-06

The basis of defendants’ contention that no jurisdiction of this claim exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is that the courts of Mississippi are available to plaintiff for pursuit of his claim for relief. There is obviously no merit to the argument that a person asserting a cause of action based on violation of a right secured by the Constitution of the United States must resort to a state forum.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a claim that state employment was terminated because the employee exercised First Amendment rights.

Lasco v. Koch · filed 1977-02-25

Thus the allegation by Plaintiff Lasco that employment with the State was terminated because he exercised his First Amendment rights states a cause of action cognizable under the civil rights statute and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal question provision.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction when a complaint squarely presents an issue requiring construction of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, even if the court later abstains.

Poage v. City of Rapid City · filed 1977-04-05

As the case has progressed, it now appears that they are invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction only under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ... they seek to frame a federal question. We think they have succeeded; Plaintiffs have squarely presented an issue which may demand construction of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. ... This Court does have subject matter jurisdiction.

A federal constitutional challenge to a state statute seeking injunctive relief may proceed under Section 1331 without satisfying the historical amount threshold, and failure to pursue a state benefit application does not oust jurisdiction.

Reynolds v. Dukakis · filed 1977-11-09

We rule that, since plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief against the enforcement of a state statute which he alleges to be unconstitutional, this case was properly referred to a statutory three-judge District Court, and we further rule that this Court does have subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1331—federal question jurisdiction—and also on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1343—this case being a civil rights action alleged to arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... We note first that, in view of the allegations of the complaint, plaintiff does not have to establish that the instant case involves a sum in excess of $10,000, and we ... also note that plaintiff’s alleged failure to petition under the Vietnam Veterans Tuition Exemption Program is not the type of failure to exhaust administrative remedies which would oust this Court of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a claim that a municipal sign prohibition abridges First Amendment speech rights.

Daugherty v. City of East Point · filed 1978-03-07

Plaintiff alleges jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, contending that the action arises under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. ... There is no question that plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights are in ques ... tion here.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction for a direct Fourth Amendment claim seeking redress from federal officials under Bivens.

J. D. Pflaumer, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice · filed 1978-05-18

Count IV of the complaint alleges a cause of action directly under the fourth amendment with jurisdiction asserted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It is now well established that an implied cause of action directly under the fourth amendment is the proper method of seeking redress for alleged violations by federal officials of the rights guaranteed by that amendment. ... Having sufficiently alleged a violation of their fourth amendment rights, the plaintiffs will be permitted to proceed on Count IV of the complaint.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over federal statutory and constitutional challenges to HUD’s administration of the National Housing Act program.

Owens v. Hills · filed 1978-05-18

Although not expressly stated in the complaint, this court has jurisdiction over the issues raised in the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

The 1976 amendment to § 1331(a) did not give district courts jurisdiction over monetary claims against the federal government.

Carlin · filed 1978-06-27(a)

We consider it clear that the amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) was not intended to give, and did not give, the district courts jurisdiction of monetary claims against the Federal Government under § 1331(a).

Section 1331 can provide subject-matter jurisdiction over a direct Fourteenth Amendment claim against government officials.

Swift v. Toia · filed 1978-05-01

Defendants once again assert a lack of subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331. ... Having determined that there is subject matter jurisdiction as delineated above to entertain plaintiff’s complaint, I will now turn to the balance of defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Section 1331(a)’s arising-under requirement covers actions founded directly on provisions of the federal Constitution.

Braniff International, Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission · filed 1978-07-20(a)

The appellants’ action, which is founded directly upon the Supremacy Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, undoubtedly “arises under the Constitution” as the Supreme Court has interpreted that phrase.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over constitutional claims against federal officials, but dismissal is required when the record eliminates any genuine constitutional issue and leaves only common-law tort claims.

Fairchild, Arabatzis & Smith, Inc. v. Sackheim · filed 1978-07-27

Our findings, which dispose of the constitutional allegations either under Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56(b), remove the only valid jurisdictional basis of the complaint, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... There being no federal question presented by the complaint, it is now dismissed in its entirety.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against federal officials based directly on the First and Fourth Amendments.

Founding Church of Scientology v. Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 1978-10-19

As to plaintiff’s claim for declaratory and injunctive relief, the Court notes, and the defendants appear to concede, that plaintiff has properly based jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A federal prisoner’s consolidated damages claims may proceed under Section 1331 rather than habeas when requested good-time credits are merely an element of damages.

Murphy v. Fenton · filed 1979-03-07

Also, the request for the good time credits is a minor part of the action (and good time credits are most meaningful only if an inmate in plaintiffs position is not paroled) and by construing all the actions as brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, I believe plaintiffs claims can be handled more expeditiously.

Section 1331(a) supplies subject-matter jurisdiction when a complaint presents a federal constitutional question.

Cervi v. State Department of Offender Rehabilitation · filed 1980-04-22(a)

Since there is a constitutional question involved, subject matter jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to an official military discharge because the claim arises under the Constitution and is brought against federal officers.

BenShalom v. Secretary of Army · filed 1980-05-20(a)

This action is brought under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331, 1361 and 1651. The Petition alleges violations of rights guaranteed under the First, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution. The action, therefore, clearly “arises under the Constitution ... of the United States” and is “brought against the United States, any agency thereof or any officer or employee thereof in his official capacity”. Jurisdiction is properly alleged under Sec. 1331(a).

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to a state rule limiting how often an otherwise qualified applicant may take a bar examination.

Younger v. Colorado State Board of Law Examiners · filed 1980-07-10

We feel that there is a sufficient basis for jurisdiction of Mr. Younger’s claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3).

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction over a claim that state regulation unconstitutionally burdens and discriminates against interstate commerce.

National Farmers Organization v. Commissioner of Agriculture · filed 1980-07-22(a)

Because this action “arises under the Constitution” ... of the United States, the court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 permits a constitutional challenge to EPA funding sanctions even when a related statutory challenge may fall within the Clean Air Act’s special review scheme.

Pacific Legal Foundation v. Costle · filed 1980-10-02

Federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976), however, permits appellants’ constitutional attack on the EPA’s use of funding sanctions, the district court concluded. That attack was held to be virtually without merit. ... We hold that in this case neither the likelihood that there was jurisdiction to hear the statutory challenge nor the likelihood that the constitutional challenge, for which jurisdiction existed, would be successful suffices to require that we direct the district court to grant appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Section 1331(a) supplies subject-matter jurisdiction when a plaintiff states a colorable Fifth Amendment equal-protection claim against federal defendants.

Vanderberg v. Carter · filed 1981-09-23(a)

Plaintiff also invokes this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). Plaintiff claims that defendants’ actions, denying plaintiff’s deceased’s spouse’s request for breast reconstruction benefits, violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. The Court finds that plaintiff has stated a color-able constitutional claim, which gives the Court subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to hear and decide constitutional cases and fashion appropriate relief for justiciable constitutional rights.

Home Box Office, Inc. v. Wilkinson · filed 1982-01-12

the federal courts are also charged with jurisdiction to hear and decide constitutional cases, and granted the power to decide them and to fashion the relief that is appropriate under all the circumstances.

Section 1331 gives a court jurisdiction over an action alleging constitutional violations even when the related claims arising under an Executive Order may not independently establish jurisdiction.

National Health Agencies' Committee for the Combined Federal Campaign v. Campbell · filed 1982-01-22

Plaintiff has alleged violations of its constitutional rights as well, and this being the case, the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this action. ... Moreover, the claims arising under the Executive Order and those under the Constitution are interrelated and are essentially identical.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a Bivens action is determined by accepting the complaint’s allegations as true and asking whether they state a constitutional cause of action.

Transportes Aeros Mercantiles Panamericanos v. Boyatt · filed 1983-04-04

Upon reviewing the pleadings, motions, and memoranda of law submitted by the parties, the Court concludes that it does have subject matter jurisdiction of this action. A federal court must determine whether it has jurisdiction over a ... -type action by considering the allegations in the complaint to be true and determining whether a cause of action under the constitution has been stated.

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

Foster v. Tourtelltotte · filed 1983-04-26

The district court properly exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (federal question jurisdiction). A claim of constitutional violation need not be proven to establish jurisdiction; a federal court has jurisdiction over a claim that federal officers violated the Constitution unless the claim "clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous."

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a federal prisoner’s constitutional claim brought directly under the Fifth Amendment rather than Section 1983.

Anderson v. Hascall · filed 1983-07-20

However, this case is maintainable directly under the fifth amendment. ... Jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims against federal officials when asserted civil-rights and declaratory-judgment statutes do not independently confer jurisdiction.

Duncan v. United States · filed 1984-04-13

As the basis of the Court's subject matter jurisdiction herein, the Plaintiffs assert 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights) and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (declaratory relief). ... The proper jurisdictional ground herein is federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) gives federal courts jurisdiction over Bivens-type Fifth Amendment claims against federal defendants.

Medina v. O'NEILL · filed 1984-05-07(a)

Therefore, pursuant to Supreme "Court precedent, this court finds that it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) to consider plaintiffs’ fifth amendment claims against the federal defendants.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that federal officials deprived the plaintiff of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Truckee-Carson Irrigation District v. Secretary of Department of Interior, and Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, Def · filed 1984-09-10

Because TCID claims that the operating criteria and the Secretary’s termination of the contract deprived it of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, this suit is within the district court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction for an implied Bivens cause of action alleging that federal officials acting under federal law deprived the plaintiff of constitutional rights.

Tripati v. United States Immigration And Naturalization Service · filed 1986-02-20

Plaintiff's additional assertion of general federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 is correct as a basis for an implied federal cause of action alleging deprivation of constitutional rights by persons acting under color of federal law.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction for an implied Bivens cause of action alleging that federal officials acting under federal law deprived the plaintiff of constitutional rights.

Tripati v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service · filed 1986-02-20

Plaintiffs additional assertion of general federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is correct as a basis for an implied federal cause of action alleging deprivation of constitutional rights by persons acting under color of ... federal ... law.

A complaint alleging that a federal official violated constitutional rights under color of federal authority invokes district-court jurisdiction under § 1331.

Storey v. United States · filed 1986-03-12

Because a federal cause of action is alleged against the unnamed IRS agent, this federal district court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) permits damages against a federal official only with personal service, specific unconstitutional-conduct allegations and proof, and a showing of bad faith and action beyond authority.

Ringer v. Basile · filed 1986-10-20(a)

In order to recover damages from an IRS official in his individual capacity under Section 1331(a) personal jurisdiction must be acquired through service of process under F.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(1) or (7), the plaintiff must allege and prove specific allegations of unconstitutional conduct by the individual official she seeks to hold liable, and plaintiff must demonstrate a lack of good faith and actions beyond defendant’s authority, (citations omitted).

Section 1331 permits review of federal employees' constitutional employment claims unless Congress clearly intended to preclude judicial review.

Steppe v. Governor, United States Soldiers' & Airmen's Home · filed 1989-04-10

Plaintiffs brought this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1346(a) and (b), alleging that defendant Governor of the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home (“Home”) wrongfully discharged the plaintiffs from their position as employees of the Home. ... It is well established that where Congress intends to preclude judicial review of constitutional claims, including those involving the employment rights of government employees, its intent to do so must be clear. ... In the instant case the five plaintiffs were prevented from employing the grievance procedures in their agreement. The Home cannot argue that despite such a finding, these plaintiffs have no redress whatsoever.

Section 1331 does not independently confer district court jurisdiction over FLSA money claims against the federal government because the Tucker Act and Little Tucker Act govern those claims.

Adams v. Gibbs · filed 1992-08-05

As specific provisions, the Tucker Act and the Little Tucker Act control over the broader language set forth in § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims against a private employer when its challenged conduct is not governmental action.

Parker v. Atlanta Gas Light Co. · filed 1993-04-13

Since defendant was not a state actor for purposes of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs federal claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a constitutional claim against private defendants when the complaint does not allege government action or action under color of law.

Smartt v. First Union National Bank · filed 2003-01-29

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a district court has jurisdiction over any civil case if it arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. ... Even had he made this crucial allegation, however, Smartt’s case would still lack federal jurisdiction, as Smartt has failed to allege that either First Union or Thompson were government actors or acting under color of state or federal law.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over an action seeking to establish a federal agency’s responsibilities and liability through interpretation and application of the 1994 Section 8 amendments and corresponding HUD directives.

Cathedral Square Partners Ltd. Partnership v. South Dakota Housing Development Authority · filed 2013-08-14

There is a grant of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in that this action seeks establishment of the responsibilities and liability of a federal agency and the interpretation and application of the 1994 amendments to Section 8 and corresponding HUD directives.

Section 1331 does not give district courts jurisdiction over FLSA or EPA money-damages claims against the federal government for more than $10,000.

Metzinger v. Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 2021-12-14

Abbey dictates that district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over FLSA or EPA claims against the govern- ment for over $10,000. Although the parties insist that Ab- bey held only that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over such claims—and that, therefore, we may conclude that district courts also have it through their 28 U.S.C. § 1331 federal-question jurisdiction—such a con- clusion would be incompatible with Abbey’s reasoning.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint asserts constitutional violations by private parties without alleging state action.

Stewart v. Bishop · filed 2024-12-09

Although Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated his First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, merely asserting constitutional violations does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants are state actors.

Federal-question jurisdiction remains when federal claims against one defendant are dismissed but federal claims against another defendant remain.

Estrada v. Real Time Resolutions Inc. · filed 2025-04-29

Here, although Plaintiff’s federal claims against Direct Default are dismissed, his complaint still contain federal claims against Real Time, and the Court still has federal question jurisdiction over the case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over constitutional claims against a private bank when the plaintiff does not allege government action or the exercise of powers traditionally reserved to the state.

Davis v. First Financial Bank · filed 2025-06-20

Plaintiff has not alleged or otherwise shown that Defendant First Financial Bank was the government, was a government actor, or exercised powers traditionally reserved for the state when it transferred Davis’ trust funds. Thus, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not alleged federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil claims alleging that federal agents violated constitutional rights.

McGuire-Mollica · filed 2026-06-16

In any event, this court does not lack jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim. She has alleged the defendants, acting in their capacity as federal agents, violated her constitutional rights. This clearly implicates a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives the district court “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a constitutional claim against a private defendant when the complaint alleges no state action.

Weir v. Lehman Newspapers, Inc. · filed 1985-04-16

This allegation failed to raise a federal question that could vest this court with subject matter jurisdiction because the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments all restrain government action not private persons. Plaintiff made no allegation that defendant was other than a private entity or that defendant’s actions constituted state action. Plaintiff thus asserted no facts giving rise to a claim arising under the constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331’s federal-question grant encompasses a nonmonetary constitutional due process claim against a federal agency when sovereign immunity is waived.

Scheafnocker v. Commissioner · filed 2011-04-19

Certainly, district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although this broad grant of authority encompasses causes such as Scheafnocker’s, the paramount issue in this case is whether it can be said that Congress has expressly waived sovereign immunity for the type of claim raised here. We conclude that it has.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over constitutional damages claims against federal personnel.

Fayerweather v. Bell · filed 1978-03-22(a)

Federal personnel who deprive persons of their Constitutional rights can be sued for damages and other relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as such actions arise under the Constitution of the United States.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a due process claim against state officials even when their alleged actions violate state law.

John N. Flood, M.D. v. John Margis, Jr. · filed 1972-05-23

With regard to federal question jurisdiction, Flood alleged that the raising of license fees, and the refusal to renew his license, was in violation of state law and deprived him of due process. ... We conclude that paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16 of the new complaint properly invoke federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 covers substantial claims that a federal official acted unconstitutionally to deprive plaintiffs of liberty and procedural due process.

Seltzer v. Foley · filed 1980-12-08

Plaintiffs’ allegations in the complaint that a government official had acted unconstitutionally to deprive them of a liberty interest and of procedural due process, thereby raised a substantial federal question within the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim brought directly under the Fourteenth Amendment alleging racially discriminatory municipal hiring.

Sam L. CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1980-12-29

Defendant argues that the dismissal should be affirmed on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court correctly concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal courts to hear a Section 1983 claim that state legislators acting under color of law violated federal constitutional rights.

Parker v. Merlino · filed 1981-04-24

We find that any suggestion that the federal courts are without jurisdiction to consider the complaint in this action is completely without merit. The complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and its jurisdictional counterpart, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, as well as under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, alleges a violation of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by the State of New Jersey, the New Jersey Senate, and its members acting under color of state law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims that state officials acting under color of state law violated federal law or the Constitution, even when the complaint does not expressly invoke § 1983.

Schoolcraft v. Sullivan · filed 1992-07-02

Nonetheless, the allegation is made that the state defendants, acting under color of state law, violated the federal regulations and applicable federal law (as well as the United States Constitution). Under these circumstances, although plaintiffs do not expressly allege a violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988), we find federal question jurisdiction sufficiently pled under section 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over claims that state disability officials misapply federal standards when those claims are distinct from claims against the Secretary and are not barred by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).

Goodnight v. Shalala · filed 1993-10-27

Therefore, § 405(h) is not controlling and Plaintiffs may bring an action against the State Defendants, pursuant to § 1331.

Section 1331 did not supply subject-matter jurisdiction over a due-process challenge to evictions by a municipal housing authority.

Randell v. Newark Housing Authority · filed 1967-03-21

1. This Court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action * * * neither under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 nor 28 U.S.C. § 2202.

A claim under federal navigable-water law did not support § 1331 jurisdiction when the affected lagoon was not a navigable waterway.

Pitship Duck Club v. Town of Sequim · filed 1970-03-16

The lagoon is not a navigable waterway. The action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not make a municipal taxpayer's state-law challenge to allegedly inadequate public-property leases cognizable in federal court when no federal right is infringed.

Booth v. Lemont Mfg. Corp. · filed 1971-01-28(a)

Plaintiff’s claim that the leases set inadequate rentals and should be reassessed to reflect their true value is not cognizable under either 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) or 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over allegations that federal officials violated federal environmental statutes and acted beyond their statutory powers.

Brooks v. Volpe · filed 1971-04-06

By virtue of these allegations, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ... and the action is not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 did not provide jurisdiction over a reservist's challenge to denial of conscientious-objector discharge where the pleaded circumstances established no benefit from that jurisdictional statute.

Still v. Commanding Officer, U. S. Army Reserve Components Personnel Center · filed 1971-11-17

Plaintiff also asserts jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 5 U.S. C. §§ 702, 703, and asks for a remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 from whatever source jurisdiction may be found. The court concludes that these statutes are not of benefit to the plaintiff in the circumstances outlined in the complaint, and accordingly adopts that part of the Magistrate’s report.

Section 1331's general jurisdictional grant cannot authorize suit against the United States unless the government has separately consented to be sued.

Standard Acceptance Company v. United States · filed 1972-05-03

The sections of Title 28 of the United States Code which Standard cites cannot confer jurisdiction by themselves since they only operate as general grants of jurisdiction. They do not authorize a federal district court to entertain suit where the government has not previously consented to be sued, as is the case here.

Section 1331(a) cannot provide jurisdiction over a Medicare claim when the incorporated Social Security Act provision bars actions under Title 28 to recover on claims arising under the Medicare subchapter.

Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center v. Richardson · filed 1973-03-01(a)

As a result, § 405(h) of the Social Security Act, which has been incorporated into the Medicare Act, makes it apparent that Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), the federal question statute, cannot be made the jurisdictional predicate for this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law personal-injury action merely because the accident occurred on a military base when the United States lacks exclusive jurisdiction over the site.

Carlton v. Bello · filed 1975-01-24

With this conclusion and decision, it is not necessary for the Court to determine the issue whether subject matter jurisdiction arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as to a civil lawsuit arising from matters occurring on a military reservation which is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. In the instant case, it is the finding, conclusion or decision of the Court that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking because the accident in question did not occur on property subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States and Federal Question jurisdiction has not been established.

Section 1331 is a general jurisdictional grant and cannot by itself support jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal right or cause of action.

Collins v. Trustees of Local 478 Trucking & Allied Industries Pension Fund · filed 1980-03-31

The aforesaid sections are “merely general grants of power to the district court to hear controversies arising under federal law.” ... In the absence of any other basis for jurisdiction, plaintiffs may not base federal subject matter jurisdiction on said statutes standing alone.

Section 1331(a) does not confer original jurisdiction over a case presenting no federal-law question.

New England Concrete Pipe Corporation v. D/c Systems of New England, Inc. · filed 1981-09-11(a)

As the district court recognized, no basis existed for original federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action. The dispute does not implicate any question of federal law and the diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendants is far from complete.

Section 1331(a) does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over trademark-infringement and unfair-competition conduct occurring in a foreign country and governed by foreign law.

American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. v. H.M. Cote, Inc. · filed 1983-02-14(a)

Jurisdiction in this Court is asserted under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1121; the provisions for federal question and trademark jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a), 1338; and diversity, § 1332. ... I regard ... as controlling authority for the proposition that insofar as White Cross alleges trademark infringement and unfair competition occurring within Canada, the complaint does not state a claim arising under the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 grants no substantive rights and cannot by itself supply the independent jurisdictional basis required for permissive intervention.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Boeing Co. · filed 1985-05-23

The pilots have not presented the court with any independent basis for jurisdiction. Instead, they cite ADEA § 7, 29 U.S.C. § 626, the very statute which terminates their right to assert their claim. They also cite general jurisdictional statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, and 1343 (1982), none of which grant substantive rights. Absent a jurisdictional basis, the court may not allow the pilots to intervene under Rule 24(b).

A local legislature cannot deprive a federal court of jurisdiction conferred by section 1331, even if it purports to give original jurisdiction over the subject to a local court.

Lizama v. Rios · filed 1985-12-20

Moreover, this Court's jurisdiction over the matter is based on the existence of a question of federal law cognizable in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 48 U.S.C. § 1694(a). It is axiomatic that the local legislature is powerless to deprive this Court of its statutory jurisdiction even if it intended to do so.

Section 1331 does not support jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s claim presents no federal question.

Walding v. Atlas Van Lines, International · filed 1986-04-21

Because this case does not present a federal question for review, this Court must dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A complaint invoking § 1331 and alleging a Commerce Clause violation adequately identifies federal question jurisdiction.

Sani-Dairy v. Yeutter · filed 1991-10-29

This argument is patently absurd. The complaint states that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337. The plaintiffs are therefore invoking the Court’s general federal question jurisdiction and its commerce jurisdiction. Contrary to the Commissioner’s assertion, the complaint asserts that the marketing order at issue violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

Section 1331 supplies federal jurisdiction over claims alleging a due process violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Interport Pilots Agency, Inc. v. Sammis · filed 1991-09-28

Clearly, federal jurisdiction over the claims set forth in this action exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a claim created by federal law, even when objections to the claim concern whether it states a valid basis for relief.

Jones v. Wake County Hospital System, Inc. · filed 1991-11-04

Federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Supp.1991). ... The court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the suit and that defendant’s objections to the court’s jurisdiction go more to the question of whether plaintiff has stated a valid claim for relief under COBRA.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction over a complaint that does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Martin v. First Federal Savings and Loan Company · filed 1991-11-04

The complaint as submitted did not vest the district court with jurisdiction, as it did not arise under the Federal Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, there is no diversity of the parties, and Martin's claim did not meet the prerequisite jurisdictional amount as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the Warsaw Convention provides a nonexclusive federal cause of action and the complaint raises no federal question.

Clark v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 1991-11-13

Because the plaintiff has set forth a cause of action under state law without raising any federal question and because the cause of action founded upon the Warsaw Convention is not exclusive, plaintiff’s complaint does not arise under federal law so as to confer removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a state law claim when federal law completely preempts it, making the claim arise under federal law.

Milne Employees Ass'n v. Sun Carriers, Inc. · filed 1991-11-20

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1988). ... Thus, if a state law claim is completely preempted by a federal statute such as section 301, the state law cause of action necessarily becomes a federal one and can be removed.

Section 1331 supplies federal question jurisdiction over claims concerning a carrier’s duties and liabilities in providing interstate telephone service because federal law governs those claims.

Thermalcraft, Inc. v. U.S. Sprint Communications Co. · filed 1991-12-04

Section 1331 grants subject matter jurisdiction to a federal court when the lawsuit “arise[es] under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Accordingly, federal subject matter jurisdiction exists because plaintiff’s claims “arise under” federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous claim alleged to arise under federal statutes or the Constitution, even if the claim ultimately fails on the merits.

FHM Constructors, Inc. v. Village of Canton Housing Authority · filed 1992-01-06

Assuming for purposes of this discussion that plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action is not “patently frivolous on its face,” their allegation that this cause of action arises under a federal statute is sufficient to sustain subject matter jurisdiction in the district court. ... For the reasons stated above, the court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1331 and 42 U.S.C. section 1437 and that HUD has waived its sovereign immunity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1404a.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction for removal when the complaint asserts only state law claims and federal law does not completely preempt them.

Financial Planning Institute, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. · filed 1992-02-11

FPI’s right to sue under its chosen theories is protected by the plain meaning of the savings clause. Because FPI’s claims arise exclusively under state law, the well-pleaded complaint rule applies to defeat removal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the plaintiff’s cause of action.

Barnhart-Graham Auto, Inc. v. Green Mountain Bank · filed 1992-03-17

Generally, a case “arises under” federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1991), and is thus removable based on federal question jurisdiction, if federal law creates a plaintiff’s cause of action.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint states no federal claim and federal law has not completely preempted those claims.

American Inmate Phone Systems, Inc. v. US Sprint Communications Co. · filed 1992-03-31

In this case, AIPS’ complaint does not allege a federal claim and federal law has not completely preempted state law in this area. As a result, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction and must remand the matter to state court.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over an action to determine the existence or priority of federal tax liens because the action arises under federal law.

Miller v. United States · filed 1992-05-06

The IRS claims that the liens were created by 26 U.S.C. § 6321, and the relative priority of the claimed liens will be determined by federal law in general and 26 U.S.C. § 6323 in particular. Therefore, this action arises under the laws of the United States, and jurisdiction of this action is vested in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal question jurisdiction when a preemption claim requires the court to construe a federal statute.

Charter Risk Retention Group Insurance v. Rolka · filed 1992-06-11

We conclude that whether defendants’ action is preempted by the Act involves the construction of a federal statute (including an interpretation of section 3905(d) as suggested by defendants), which is clearly a federal question.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim alleging a violation of the Constitution, even when the defendant disputes the existence of the asserted constitutional right.

Vonderhaar v. Parish of St. Tammany · filed 1992-06-25

Federal question jurisdiction exists whenever a claim arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Supp. I 1989). ... These cases, however, do not strip a federal court of jurisdiction to hear a controversy involving an interpretation of the United States Constitution and its amendments. ... The plaintiffs, therefore, have made sufficient allegations to support federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a federal district court subject matter jurisdiction when a parent alleges that a state child custody proceeding violated 25 U.S.C. § 1911, § 1912, or § 1913.

Roman-Nose v. New Mexico Department of Human Services · filed 1992-06-19

To the extent that Plaintiff alleges a violation of section 1911, 1912 or 1913 of title 25, the federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over a claim challenging federal agency procedures when the central question concerns the requirements of federal law.

Alaska Airlines v. Austin · filed 1992-08-12

The federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, gives this Court subject matter jurisdiction over the claim because its central question is one of federal law: what procedures are required under the federal statute governing post-payment audits of transportation bills.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over an action arising under federal statutes, including claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 5310.

Chan v. City of New York · filed 1992-09-08

Inasmuch as this action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as under 42 U.S.C. § 5310, there is the requisite subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because relief requires resolving a federal question raised as a defense.

Vang v. Healy · filed 1992-09-15(a)

Plaintiffs’ right to relief is clearly based, upon state law. It must be acknowledged that a court could not provide the plaintiffs a remedy and set aside the director’s decision without a finding that federal law does not prohibit the application of the equitable estoppel doctrine. Nonetheless, the fact that the plaintiffs’ right to relief under state law requires resolution of a federal question does not make the plaintiffs’ claim “arise” under federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim arising under federal law even when the statute invoked does not afford the relief sought.

Holley v. Department of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-09-16

Although petitioner's claim "arises under" the laws of the United States for jurisdictional purposes, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Privacy Act does not afford the relief petitioner seeks.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a § 1983 action alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Cannaday v. Gibas · filed 1992-09-30

The court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 insofar as it is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which the plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Section 1331 supports removal only when the action asserts a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Hill v. Chemical Bank · filed 1992-08-04

Removal of a state court action based on federal question jurisdiction is proper only if the action asserts a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441.

Section 1331’s general federal-question jurisdiction does not confer jurisdiction over actions against the Columbia River Gorge Commission because the Gorge Act’s more specific jurisdiction provisions assign those actions to state courts.

Broughton Lumber Company v. Columbia River Gorge Commission · filed 1992-12-02

Broughton further contends that the district court had jurisdiction over its declaratory judgment action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal question jurisdictional provision. This contention is without merit, as the jurisdictional provisions of the Gorge Act, 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b)(5)-(6), are more specific than section 1331’s grant of jurisdiction. Therefore, the provisions of the Gorge Act are controlling.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over an action seeking to interpret a SMCRA regulation when the action does not challenge the regulation itself.

SG Coal Co. v. Lujan · filed 1992-12-30

As the Magistrate Judge correctly states, SG Coal’s claim does not challenge the regulation but merely requires an interpretation of its language. As such, the Court finds that it is not precluded from entertaining this action by 30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(1), ... and that it has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-05.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous claim of a right or remedy under a federal statute.

Black Hills Institute of Geological Research v. United States, Department of Justice · filed 1993-02-03

This issue involves the application and interpretation of various federal statutes concerning Indian trust lands. It is on this basis that the Court finds it has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A nonfrivolous claim of a right or remedy under a federal statute is sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a carrier’s claim for unpaid produce-shipment charges under the Interstate Commerce Act when the shipments are exempt from ICC regulation and its filed-rate requirements.

Henslin v. Roaasti Trucking, Inc. · filed 1993-02-25

Accordingly, the court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there is no federal question jurisdiction with respect to the fourth, fifth and sixth claims. It is undisputed that each of the shipments at issue included only agricultural products exempt from the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Because the shipments were exempt from ICC jurisdiction and the rate and tariff requirements, Plaintiff may not avail herself of the provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 10744 regarding liability for payment of filed rates.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises no issue under a federal statute or the Constitution.

Malik v. Butler · filed 1993-05-17

To date, neither Malik nor her appointed attorneys have articulated any basis of federal jurisdiction over her claims. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that federal judicial power extends to all cases arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. Malik raises no issue involving either a section of a federal statute or the Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a colorable federal constitutional claim challenging restrictions on a state-created initiative process.

Taxpayers United for Assessment Cuts v. Richard H. Austin, Citizens for Education Ballot Question Committee, Intervening · filed 1993-07-01

Accordingly, we conclude that although the Constitution does not require a state to create an initiative procedure, if it creates such a procedure, the state cannot place restrictions on its use that violate the federal Constitution; therefore, we conclude, as did the district court, that the plaintiffs have stated a colorable claim under § 1983, giving the district court jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 requires an essential claim under the Constitution or federal law; a complaint involving a federal statute does not arise under federal law when that statute affords the plaintiffs no judicial redress.

Western Shoshone Business Council v. Babbitt · filed 1993-07-27

For this court to exercise federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, there must be a constitutional or federal statutory provision under which plaintiffs are aggrieved. See Gully v. First Nat'l Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112, 57 S.Ct. 96, 97, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936) ("To bring a case within [Sec. 1331], a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff's cause of action."). Although plaintiffs maintain that their complaint stems from the contract approval procedure of 25 U.S.C. Sec. 81, we have already held plaintiffs are not within the compass of that statute for judicial redress until there is a determination of their status under the regulations governing tribal recognition. That section 81 authorizes suits in the name of the United States to recover sums paid under contracts which do not comply with its provisions does not amount to "arising under" jurisdiction for all complaints involving this section. See, e.g., Gila River Indian Community v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, 626 F.2d 708, 714-15 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911, 101 S.Ct. 1983, 68 L.Ed.2d 301 (1981); Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Martinez, 519 F.2d 479, 481-82 (10th Cir.1975).

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over Rule 22 interpleader when a claimant could have brought a federal coercive action to recover the disputed fund.

Commercial Union Insurance Company v. United States v. William Scott · filed 1993-08-10

Defendant United States based its claim to the fund on the FMCRA. Thus, federal question jurisdiction would have existed in a coercive action brought by the United States and thereby could have been alleged in this interpleader.

Section 1331 gives a federal district court jurisdiction over a federal question raised by a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Reitz v. Persing · filed 1993-08-25

Since there is a federal question under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 before the court, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as well as 28 U.S.C. 1343(3) and (4).

Section 1331 provides subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under the Stafford Act.

Lockett v. Federal Emergency Management Agency · filed 1993-08-09

Subject matter jurisdiction is present because it “arises under” the Stafford Act.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a Clean Water Act citizen suit that pleads a substantial federal claim, even when the defendant argues that the claim fails on the merits.

Hudson Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc. · filed 1993-10-21

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint filed, as is this action, pursuant to § 505(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1). This subject matter jurisdiction is granted to the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... This argument is at most an argument that the complaint fails to state a claim and is not a valid attack on subject matter jurisdiction. We take our subject matter jurisdiction from the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 supplies original jurisdiction over an action arising under and governed exclusively by the federal Cable Act.

City of Ottawa v. Sammons Communications, Inc. · filed 1993-11-04

This court has original jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 in that the action arises under and is governed exclusively by the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 521-59.

Section 1331 gives a federal district court jurisdiction over an action raising a constitutional question.

Beck v. MO. STATE HIGH SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASS'N · filed 1993-11-15

Plaintiff properly invokes this Court's federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, citing the existence of a constitutional question.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not expand rights expressly limited by a specific federal law.

Conservation Law Foundation of New England, Inc. v. Browner · filed 1993-12-09

Neither the legislative history of § 1331 nor the case law interpreting it, however, supports the proposition that the grant of federal question jurisdiction itself expands rights otherwise expressly limited by specific federal law. If this is the plaintiffs’ approach, it is unavailing.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over actions arising under federal law, including these appeals involving federal food stamp and housing laws.

O'Bryant v. Idaho Department of Health & Welfare · filed 1993-12-23

Indeed, in the absence of any provision granting state courts such jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it is axiomatic that “[federal] 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.S. § 1331 (Law. Co-op.1986). These consolidated actions on appeal arise under laws of the United States and involve the application and interpretation of federal statutes and regulations.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint raises no question of federal law.

Husk v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. · filed 1994-01-20

It is clear that no federal question is raised by the Plaintiff's complaint. [4] 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(c) thus prohibit this Court from assuming jurisdiction over the case, [5] and it must be remanded to the Circuit Court of Wood County.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over actions raising a federal question; jurisdiction is absent when the asserted federal claims do not present one.

Wollman v. Poinsett Hutterian Brethren, Inc. · filed 1994-02-25

The civil jurisdiction of federal district courts is limited to either actions raising a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or actions involving diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... Plaintiffs do not allege diversity of citizenship in the present action and, as illustrated below, this action does not involve a federal question. Upon this record, the Court must dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over competing claims to Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance proceeds among nondiverse private parties because deciding entitlement requires interpreting federal law.

Melton Ex Rel. White v. White · filed 1994-03-18

Given the views expressed in the foregoing authorities, the Court is satisfied that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy at hand. A determination of who is entitled to the proceeds of the insurance policy necessarily requires an interpretation of federal law as expressed in the Act.

Section 1331 provides federal jurisdiction when the parties dispute whether IDEA protections apply to a student.

M.P. Ex Rel. D.P. v. Governing Board of the Grossmont Union High School District · filed 1994-03-21

Federal jurisdiction is appropriate in the present matter because the parties dispute whether the protections of IDEA apply to the plaintiff. Jurisdiction is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1988).

Section 1331 supplies federal question jurisdiction over personal injury claims covered by the Warsaw Convention, including claims pleaded under state law, because the Convention completely preempts those claims.

Akin v. Big Three Industries, Inc. · filed 1994-03-21

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1993). ... Plaintiffs’ claims, which are covered by the Warsaw Convention, necessarily arise under federal law and were properly removed to federal court.

Section 1331 does not provide subject matter jurisdiction when no federal question is at issue.

Perkins v. New Jersey Department of Labor · filed 1994-04-11

This Court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction because there is no federal question at issue, and diversity of citizenship is improper because there is no indication that the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over RCRA claims because they arise under federal law.

Winston v. Shell Oil Co. · filed 1994-08-18

This Court was given original jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the RCRA claims arose “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” When the RCRA claims are dismissed, this court no longer has original jurisdiction over this action and, therefore, under § 1367(c)(3) the supplemental state claims will also have to be dismissed.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims for FEHBA benefits when FEHBA provides no federal cause of action that completely preempts those claims.

Marilyn Goepel Ronald Goepel v. National Postal Mail Handlers Union, a Division of Liuna, D/B/A Mail Handlers Benefit Pl · filed 1994-10-25

Consequently, we conclude that the complete preemption doctrine does not apply to the Goepels’ claims, and thus “recharacterization” of their state claims as federal claims is “not possible” and “there is no claim arising under federal law to be removed and litigated in the federal court.”

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil claims alleging violations of federal law, including 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 2000e.

Walker v. City of Elba, Ala. · filed 1994-11-30

The court may competently assert subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 2000e (“Title VII”). ... Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “[t]he districts courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the.... laws.... of the United States.”

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a constitutional due process claim arising under the Constitution.

Zipperer v. City of Fort Myers · filed 1995-01-03

As a preliminary matter, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a federal question action arising under the Constitution, and we reject Appellees’ contention that the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, bars federal court jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over substantial federal claims.

Associated General Contractors of California v. San Francisco Unified School District · filed 1980-02-11

Thus 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provided jurisdiction over the federal claims.