28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 requires facts sufficient to show a federal question for federal-question jurisdiction.

Dilday v. Salazar · filed 2005-04-04

The district court also properly dismissed Dilday’s remaining claims because she fails to allege facts sufficient to show either a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1089-90 (9th Cir.2002), or diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68, 117 S.Ct. 467, 136 L.Ed.2d 437, (1996).

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim seeking relief under federal law unless the federal claim is immaterial, frivolous and insubstantial, or made solely to obtain jurisdiction.

Sarhank Group v. Oracle Corporation · filed 2005-04-14

Where, as here, the Petition seeks relief under the Constitution or the laws of the United States, the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, unless the federal claim is immaterial, frivolous and insubstantial or made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state wrongful discharge claim that is not completely preempted by federal law.

Hagan v. Feld Entertainment, Inc. · filed 2005-04-15

Plaintiffs state wrongful discharge claim is not preempted by federal law, and consequently there is no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires facts sufficient to show a federal question for subject matter jurisdiction.

Henderson v. Seltzer · filed 2005-06-22

The district court properly dismissed Henderson’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because he failed to allege facts sufficient to show either a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1089-90 (9th Cir.2002), or diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68, 117 S.Ct. 467, 136 L.Ed.2d 437, (1996).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a claim resting entirely on federal law even if the claim fails on its merits.

McCready, Kenneth A. v. White, Jesse · filed 2005-08-02

McCready makes a claim that rests entirely on federal law, and 28 U.S.C. §1331 supplies jurisdiction to entertain such claims. That McCready’s theory may be bad substantively does not negate that jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires an allegation that a constitutional right or a right created by federal law was violated to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Haynes v. Sacred Heart Hospital · filed 2005-08-30

For federal question jurisdiction, Haynes must allege a violation of his constitutional rights or a right created under a federal law.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when a complaint raises a federal question; a claim based solely on state law does not qualify.

Kabes v. School District of River Falls · filed 2005-09-26

Generally, a federal court has jurisdiction to hear a case in three instances: (1) when the complaint raises a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331; (2) when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332; and (3) when a state law claim is part of the same case or controversy as a federal law claim that may be considered under § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiff Kabes’s claim that defendants violated Wis. Stat. § 118.24 does not fall into any of these categories.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over a federal-law habeas claim even if a separate statute may limit the available remedy.

Harris, Lamar v. Stepp, E.A. · filed 2005-09-28

Paragraph 5 does not diminish the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, which rests on 28 U.S.C. §1331 because the claim arises under federal law. Sections 2241 and 2255 deal with remedies; neither one is a jurisdictional clause.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over a federal habeas claim even when a separate statute may limit the available remedy.

Harris v. Warden, Usp Lee · filed 2005-09-28

Paragraph 5 does not diminish the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, which rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the claim arises under federal law. Sections 2241 and 2255 deal with remedies; neither one is a jurisdictional clause.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a suit to enjoin a state official’s threatened enforcement action when the plaintiff alleges that federal law prohibits it.

Clearing House Ass'n, LLC v. Spitzer · filed 2005-10-12

Because the Clearing House seeks injunctive relief from the Attorney General’s threatened enforcement action on the ground that such action is prohibited by federal law, it has presented a federal question over which this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to resolve.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction only over claims arising under an applicable federal constitutional or statutory provision.

Huli v. Way · filed 2005-10-13

Section 1331, standing alone, does not confer subject matter jurisdiction. The jurisdiction extends only to claims that arise from some other applicable federal constitutional or statutory provision.

Section 1331 does not confer subject matter jurisdiction when the complaint states no claim based on federal law.

Brown v. Harvey · filed 2005-10-31

The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over appellant’s complaint because the complaint did not state a claim based on federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor was there diversity of citizenship (both appellant and appellee are residents of the District of Columbia), see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no violation of federal constitutional or statutory rights.

McKnight v. Hartford Insurance · filed 2005-12-22

McKnight’s allegations as set forth in his amended complaint made it clear that the District Court had neither federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor jurisdiction based upon a diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to assert a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States for federal-question jurisdiction.

Wilson v. Rayford · filed 2006-01-10

Moreover, Wilson has not asserted any claims in his complaint arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, as required for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint states a claim based on federal law.

Taylor v. Department of Motor Vehicles · filed 2006-03-10

The district court properly dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as the complaint failed to state a claim based on federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor was there diversity of citizenship, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim even if the claim ultimately fails to state a cause of action.

Doe v. Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2006-04-25

The proper disposition of a complaint like the Barwood complaint—and the one we ultimately followed in that case, notwithstanding initially using 12(b)(1) language13—is not a dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction inasmuch as section 1983 itself provides the basis for federal question jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1331 and the court must assume jurisdiction before deciding whether a cause of action exists.

Section 1331 requires a claim to rest on the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; conclusory allegations of criminal conduct during a marital dissolution do not suffice.

Keyter v. Locke · filed 2006-05-19

The district court properly dismissed Keyter’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Keyter’s conclusory claims of criminal acts committed during the dissolution of his marriage rest on no provision of the Constitution, the laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 grants federal courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law.

Whitman v. Department of Transportation · filed 2006-06-05

Another statute, however—a very familiar one—grants jurisdiction to the federal courts over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. §1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint does not identify a federal claim.

St. Croix v. Etenad · filed 2006-06-06

After careful scrutiny of the record and appellant’s informal brief, we agree that the District Court lacked subject jurisdiction over St. Croix’s complaint, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a), and that, in any event, appellant’s purported claims – unsupported by the necessary factual allegations – fell woefully short of that necessary to state a claim under either the Sherman Act or 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even with the most liberal construction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a petition raises no federal question.

In Re 4 Front Petroleum, Inc. · filed 2006-06-29

No federal questions are raised by the Trustee in his Petition, so federal jurisdiction does not arise under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over an FTCA claim; whether state workers’ compensation law defeats the claim concerns its merits.

Luna, Patricia A. v. US Dept Navy · filed 2006-07-17

The Navy characterizes this as a question of subject- matter jurisdiction. It is not. The district court had subject- matter jurisdiction because Luna brought her claim under the FTCA, which is to say she presented the district court with a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Whether the Navy is a borrowing employer under the IWCA is a question about the merits of this case—the extent to which a private individual would be liable under Illinois law.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over a complaint alleging violations of federal statutes, including 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.

Baldwin Hills Medical Group v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority · filed 2006-08-04

Smith’s complaint alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Therefore, the district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 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.”).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over constitutional claims unless they are wholly insubstantial and frivolous; a colorable claim generally cannot be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Ibrahim v. District of Columbia · filed 2006-09-08

For example, Ibrahim seeks to pursue several constitutional claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although claims can be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction where they are “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946), colorable claims are not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless “Congress [has] . . . rank[ed] a statutory limitation on coverage as jurisdictional,” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 126 S. Ct. 1235, 1245, ___ U.S. ___, ___ (2006). Because the District Court did not apply these standards in dismissing Ibrahim’s claims for lack of jurisdiction, we remand for the District Court to address them in the first instance.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a civil action that does not arise under federal law.

Schu v. Seventh Day Adventist Headquarters · filed 2006-10-17

The district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is not a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; nor does the complaint allege any other basis for the district court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when no constitutional provision, federal law, or treaty secures rights against the claimant’s custodian.

Mohammed v. Harvey · filed 2006-10-19

Because the petitioner is in the custody of MNF-I, against whom no U.S. law secures him rights, he cannot point to a constitutional provision, law, or treaty of the United States that his case arises under, and thus he cannot invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an EMTALA claim for “reverse patient dumping” because federal law provides no viable cause of action for that claim.

Preston v. Tenet Healthsystem Memorial Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2006-11-21

In this case, a viable cause of action under federal law does not exist for “reverse patient dumping” and thus does not confer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a wrongful termination claim that does not arise under federal law.

Howerton v. Ogletree · filed 2006-12-20

First, plaintiffs wrongful termination claim does not arise under federal law, see Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986), and, thus, does not provide this Court with federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim merely because the property at issue was once owned by the United States and conveyed to the Cherokee Nation.

McNeil v. Anderson · filed 2006-12-28

We likewise agree with the district court that McNeil’s cause of action is not one that “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” as would be required for the district court to assert subject matter jurisdiction over the cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although the materials submitted by McNeil in connection with his complaint indicate that his parcel was originally owned by the United States and then conveyed by patent to the Cherokee Nation, those facts are insufficient, standing alone, to establish that his claim against Anderson involves issues of federal law.

Section 1331 gives a federal district court jurisdiction over a suit by the United States to vindicate its rights under the Constitution and federal statutes.

United States v. Adams · filed 2007-02-08

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction because the federal government has initiated a “civil action arising under the Constitution [and] laws ... of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a purported § 1983 claim when none of the defendants could be liable under § 1983.

Jenkins v. Lennar Corporation · filed 2007-02-08

The record demonstrates that Jenkins’s action failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of either § 1331 or § 1332. ... Second, Jenkins failed to present the district court with a federal question because, although she asserts that she is bringing her claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, none of the defendants could be liable under § 1983.

Section 1331 does not provide federal jurisdiction over a claim brought solely under state law.

Dibrell v. Huber · filed 2007-02-15

In addition, even if we were to accept Dibrell’s argument that he brought suit under state law, we would affirm for a different reason -- lack of jurisdiction. If Dibrell, a Texas citizen and resident, brought solely a state law claim against Appellees, who are both Texas citizens and residents, federal jurisdiction would not exist. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over a complaint alleging a violation of federal law, even if the complaint ultimately fails to state a claim.

Aaron v. Bob Evans Restaurant · filed 2007-03-16

Here, Mr. Aaron explicitly complains that a federal law has been violated by the defendant in this action. Furthermore, he does not refute this court’s jurisdiction based on the application of the Civil Rights Act. Thus, the matter was properly removed to this court. Although this court does have subject matter jurisdiction over this action, the complaint is dismissed for failing to state a claim for relief.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over nonfrivolous claims arising under federal law, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hopkins v. Cornerstone America · filed 2007-03-30

Plaintiffs have asserted claims under the FLSA, which is federal law. Their claims are neither insubstantial nor made solely for the purposes of obtaining subject-matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court enjoys subject-matter jurisdiction under section 1331’s broad , grant of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not allow a litigant to bypass the limits of a specific jurisdictional grant under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).

Lahrar v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services · filed 2007-05-08

In addition, while plaintiff has sought to invoke two other potential sources of subject matter jurisdiction, the APA and § 1331, neither of these provisions applies where, as here, their application would “allow a litigant to avoid limitations on a specific grant of jurisdiction, namely 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), by means of a general grant of jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 gives a federal district court original jurisdiction when the complaint alleges a federal cause of action.

Buster v. City of Wallingford · filed 2007-06-11

However, notwithstanding that defendants may not have satisfied the provisions entitling them to § 1443 removal, they have satisfied the requirements for general removal under § 1441(b) by the very fact that plaintiff alleges a federal cause of action in her Complaint, giving this Court original jurisdiction over the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a civil action that does not arise under federal law.

Bell v. Ardelle Associates · filed 2007-06-14

The district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is not a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; nor does the complaint allege any other basis for the district court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a civil action that does not arise under federal law.

Bell v. Davenport · filed 2007-06-14

The district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is not a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; nor does the complaint allege any other basis for the district court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction over a civil action that does not arise under federal law.

Bell v. Police Department · filed 2007-06-14

The district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is not a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; nor does the complaint allege any other basis for the district court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a dispute about ownership of a deceased parent’s property when no federal question is present.

Chou v. Chow · filed 2007-06-14

The district court properly dismissed Chou’s claims against Chow without prejudice to filing in state court because there is no diversity or federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff fails to establish a federal question.

Ganguly v. Swiss American Securities, Inc. · filed 2007-07-20

The district court correctly concluded that Ganguly failed to establish either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over § 1983 claims even when facts may prevent the plaintiff from prevailing on those claims.

Ortega v. Brock · filed 2007-08-07

This court clearly has original subject-matter jurisdiction over Ortega’s federal § 1983 claims against Brock. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. That original jurisdiction would not be lost by the existence of facts that would preclude Brock’s § 1983 liability.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff pursues state-law claims and waives any federal claims that might be construed from the complaint.

CRUEL v. County of Greenville · filed 2007-08-14

The plaintiff, however, has specifically stated in his objections to the removal that he wishes to pursue his claims pursuant to state laws and waives all federal claims that might be construed from his state court complaint. Consequently, this Court is without ‘federal question’ jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim based on a federal statute that supplies no private right of action.

Webb v. Smart Document · filed 2007-08-27

Therefore, where there is no federal private right of action, federal courts may not entertain a claim that depends on the presence of federal question juris- diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires an alleged federal or constitutional basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Grigsby v. Thomas · filed 2007-09-14

He alleges no federal or constitutional basis for jurisdiction sufficient to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor does he allege any case or controversy in excess of $75,000 or against a diverse defendant as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous claim that an agency has failed to act within a reasonable time under 5 U.S.C. § 555(b).

Alkeylani v. Department of Homeland Security · filed 2007-09-20

Therefore, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in conjunction with 5 U.S.C. § 555(b).

Section 1331 requires a right of action under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Sophocleous v. Lawrence Memorial Hospital · filed 2007-10-12

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 depends on a right of action under some federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer subject matter jurisdiction over a civil action that does not arise under federal law.

Powers v. Triple AAA Insurance · filed 2007-10-24

The district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is not a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; nor does the complaint allege any other basis for the district court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the complaint presents neither a federally created cause of action nor an actually disputed and substantial federal issue.

Mtg v. Smith · filed 2007-11-14

Moreover, nothing in the record indicates that the Smiths had an objectively reasonable basis from which to conclude that federal question jurisdiction supported removal. Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is proper “only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. It is undisputed here that the foreclosure action relied exclusively upon state law. Federal law did not create the cause of action, see Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986), nor did Chase’s and MERS’s state law claims require the resolution of an “actually disputed and substantial” federal issue. See Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). Accordingly, there was no objectively reasonable basis from which the Smiths could have concluded that federal question jurisdiction was proper.

Section 1331 supplies federal subject matter jurisdiction over a lawsuit arising under the APA and ESA.

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Kempthorne · filed 2008-01-23

Here, federal subject matter jurisdiction exists because this lawsuit arises under the APA and ESA, two federal statutory schemes. Plaintiffs have invoked the court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a claim arises under federal law.

Blagojevich, Rod v. Gates, Robert M. · filed 2008-03-11

Jurisdiction is secure under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1346(a)(2)—the former because the Governor’s claim arises under federal law, and the latter because the fed- eral government is the defendant and the suit does not seek the kind of monetary damages that allocate pro- ceedings to the Court of Federal Claims.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a delayed citizenship application when the specific jurisdictional scheme of 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) governs.

Boakye v. Hansen · filed 2008-03-17

The limitations placed on the grant of subject matter jurisdiction by § 1447(b), as well as the authority to remand contained therein, would be eliminated, if this Court were able to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this litigation in accordance with § 1331, merely because Plaintiffs claim arises under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law discrimination claim when federal labor law does not completely preempt it.

Wrobbel v. Asplundh Construction Corp. · filed 2008-04-24

Just as in Aheam, as discussed above, Plaintiffs state law complaint is not completely preempted under federal law, and does not provide a basis for diversity or federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction over a federal statutory claim is not limited by a District of Columbia statute restricting suits by unregistered foreign corporations.

J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Humphries Enterprises, LLC · filed 2010-06-04

This conclusion is compelled both textually, as the Code reads that an unregistered corporation may not bring suit in “any court of the District” rather than “any court in the District,” § 29-101.119(a) (emphasis added), as well as constitutionally because a District statute cannot limit federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over a private dispute based on foreign relations merely because the dispute concerns a foreign government’s control of petroleum activity when that government has not intervened.

Abrahamsen v. ConocoPhillips · filed 2012-11-01

Because Norway has not intervened here, the Norwegian government‟s “sovereignty over all petroleum-based activities in its territorial ... waters and on its Continental Shelf,” Appellee‟s Resp. Br. at 51, is insufficient to generate federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not authorize district courts to exercise jurisdiction over a subject for which Congress has explicitly withheld federal-court jurisdiction.

McKenzie v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services · filed 2014-08-01

It therefore is not appropriate for the district court to exercise jurisdiction under § 1331 where, as here, Congress has explicitly withheld federal-court jurisdiction over the specific subject of the litigation.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state subpoena-enforcement proceeding merely because a separate federal suit concerning the matter raises a federal question.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities v. TitleMax of Delaware, Inc. · filed 2020-01-10

In any event, the court does not agree that the commencement of a suit in the District of Delaware—which assertedly raises a federal question—somehow creates federal question jurisdiction in this proceeding to enforce the Department’s subpoena. Again, Defendants have not met their burden, and the court concludes that there is no federal question jurisdiction in this enforcement proceeding.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges § 1983 claims for violations of federal constitutional rights.

Morelli v. Hyman · filed 2020-01-16

Nevertheless, the FAC alleges claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights. See ECF No. 32 at PageID #513. On this basis, the FAC sufficiently alleges federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint fails to properly bring a federal claim under § 1983.

Williams v. Han · filed 2020-03-25

Here, Plaintiff alleges civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on his arrest for battery with substantial bodily harm. However, because the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to properly bring a claim under Section 1983 (see discussion below), federal question jurisdiction does not exist at this time.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when unequivocal deposition testimony establishes that the plaintiff is bringing a federal claim, even though the initial complaint pleaded only state-law claims.

Hall v. Gestamp West Virginia, LLC · filed 2020-04-20

Based on the plaintiff's unequivocal deposition testimony affirming an FMLA claim, coupled with the broad reservation in her complaint of the right to amend in order to allege claims for violations of public policy, including retaliation and taking leave to address medical concerns, all found in a complaint replete with references to the FMLA, the court finds that removal based on federal question jurisdiction was proper.

A deficient disclosure of organizational interests does not defeat federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

M.E.B. v. Credit Control Services, Inc. · filed 2020-12-04

Even if Defendant’s Disclosure of Organization Interests was somehow deficient, that procedural deficiency cannot trump Defendant’s substantive right to remove this action under 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on federal criminal statutes that a private plaintiff cannot enforce through a criminal prosecution.

Murrell v. Cars · filed 2021-05-10

Additionally, under the federal-question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... The first two statutes Plaintiff cites are federal criminal statutes.1 However, the ... Thus, Plaintiff cannot establish federal subject-matter Jurisdiction by citing to these statutes.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction for alleged violations of federal criminal statutes or a regulation that provide no private civil cause of action, even when framed as a Section 1983 claim.

WEISMAN v. BAUR · filed 2021-08-04

Alleged violations of these criminal and regulatory authorities, therefore, do not provide a basis on which we can exercise subject matter jurisdiction, even under a Section 1983 framework.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s state-court claim for removal; a federal defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Powers v. Reaves · filed 2021-10-19

For the removal to be proper, Defendant must demonstrate that the action he seeks to remove, as pled by the Plaintiff in state court, contains one or more claims arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), (b), 1331(a). ... However, such defenses do not establish removal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide removal jurisdiction based on federal-law defenses or counterclaims to a state-law eviction action.

Powers v. Reaves · filed 2021-11-16

Defendant has failed to identify a viable jurisdictional basis for the removal of this Eviction action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1441. ... Furthermore, the Report notes that to the extent Defendant attempts to remove the State court action by asserting defenses or counterclaims which purportedly raise questions of federal law, “such defenses do not establish removal jurisdiction.” ... Upon review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil cases arising under federal law, and the District of Columbia CMPA cannot limit that jurisdiction.

Davage v. District of Columbia Housing Authority · filed 2022-01-28

Here, the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is premised on two federal statutes: 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which confers jurisdiction on federal district courts in civil cases “arising under the Constitution [or ] laws . . . of the United States,” and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, which confers jurisdiction on federal district courts in civil cases brought “[t]o 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.” Nothing contained in the CMPA purports to limit—or could limit—these grants of federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s own cause of action arises under federal law.

Heyward v. Leftridge · filed 2022-05-18

First, it appears that the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction because this case does not arise under a federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The plaintiff in the state court action is Heyward, and because Leftridge has not shown that Heyward’s state court lawsuit relied on any of the federal laws he names—in fact, he does not attach her complaint as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a)—he has failed to show that the Court has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a notice of removal merely invokes federal law without facts showing a federal-law claim.

The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity v. Barreto · filed 2022-06-27

Barreto’s notice of removal appears to be mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim; it does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a state-law claim when ERISA preemption creates a federal question.

Tousignant v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. · filed 2022-06-30

Tousignant has not moved to remand the action to state court, but in any case, federal question jurisdiction remains intact as to the IFCA claim. As described below, the Plan is regulated by ERISA, a law of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. When raised as a defense to a state law claim, preemption by a law like ERISA creates federal question jurisdiction and allows for removal to federal court.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a complaint arising under federal law; a defendant’s affirmative defense challenging the plaintiff’s standing to bring the statutory claim does not remove that jurisdiction.

Ruby v. Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. · filed 2022-07-21

In removing this case to federal court, Defendant asserted correctly that jurisdiction was proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiffs action arises under federal law, namely, the TCPA. The fact that Defendant has raised lack of standing as an affirmative defense does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction to review discretionary immigration determinations when another statute bars judicial review.

Garcia v. USCIS · filed 2022-08-12

With respect to federal question jurisdiction, courts “do[] not have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331[]” in this context “because the statutes specifically divest courts of jurisdiction to review these discretionary determinations.” ... Therefore, the court concludes that none of the statutes cited by Ramirez provide the court with jurisdiction over his claims.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction when the complaint at the time of removal contains claims arising under the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes.

Pickering v. Noonan · filed 2022-09-16

This Court finds that removal was proper, and that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the complaint, at the time of removal, contained claims arising under the Constitution or statutes of the United States.

Section 1331 does not permit review of agency action when another statute precludes judicial review.

Lovo v. Miller · filed 2023-05-18

Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) does not permit review of agency action where it is otherwise precluded.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on tribal membership alone when the complaint identifies no federal statutory or constitutional basis.

Gonzales v. Cashman · filed 2023-07-25

Indeed, while Mr. Gonzales believes that his rights as a member of the Navajo Nation have been disregarded, he identifies no statutory or constitutional provision that would establish federal question jurisdiction based on his (or his son’s) tribal membership.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when state-law claims cite federal statutes unrelated to the alleged conduct.

White v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 2023-10-19

Neither of these statutes is relevant to the allegations in the complaint, which relate to the administration of an insurance contract. They cannot, therefore, be used to form the basis of federal question subject matter jurisdiction, and White has failed to demonstrate that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff’s complaint to state a claim arising under federal law; a defendant’s federal defenses do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Amwest Funding Corp. v. Momdzaynn · filed 2023-10-24

Here, federal question jurisdiction is lacking because the Complaint does not state a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Complaint [Dkt. No. 1, pp. 25–26]. Whereas Defendant’s Notice of Removal argues that this Court has jurisdiction because her defenses arise under federal laws, “the existence of federal jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those claims.” ARCO Env’t Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health and Env’t Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000).

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction was lost when the amended complaint removed all federal claims.

Navarro v. King County Sheriff's Office · filed 2023-11-02

As noted above, Defendants removed this case based solely on federal question jurisdiction. That jurisdictional basis was destroyed when Mr. Navarro filed his second amended complaint removing all federal claims.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot be limited by a state registration requirement for bringing suit in federal court.

G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Godinez · filed 2024-03-19

Although there is no case directly on point regarding the applicability of LLC Law § 808(a) and its ensuing registration requirements on actions brought under federal question jurisdiction, it cannot be the case that state law imposes limitations on a plaintiff commencing an action in federal court based exclusively on federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplied federal-question jurisdiction for the case when it was removed.

New Mexico Horseman's Association v. Sunray Gaming of New Mexico, L.L.C. · filed 2024-05-22

The Court concludes that the Defendants Sunray Gaming of New Mexico L.L.C. and All-American Ruidoso Downs, LLC (“the Defendants”), properly removed this case to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and 1446.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the only asserted federal claim is a Privacy Act claim against an individual and no other federal claim is alleged.

Olson v. Wyche · filed 2024-12-26

Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim under the Privacy Act against Defendant. Plaintiff makes no other allegations or claims under the United States Constitution or federal statutes. Therefore, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 grants original federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself provide a cause of action or authorize review of state-court judgments.

Wilson v. Morrison · filed 2025-01-16

Section 1331, however, does not authorize federal district courts to review state court judgments. ... Section 1331 is a federal jurisdictional statute which does not provide an independent basis for relief in federal court.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over civil-rights allegations that can be construed as § 1983 claims.

Cassidy v. Citrus County Mosquito Control District · filed 2025-04-08

So, Plaintiff’s allegations of “civil rights violations” by CCMCD survive the inquiry into subject matter jurisdiction as they can be construed as section 1983 claims.

Congress may limit district courts’ federal-question jurisdiction by providing an alternative scheme for reviewing agency action.

Lemelson v. Securities Exchange Commission · filed 2025-05-27

District courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. But Congress may “preclude district courts from exercising jurisdiction over challenges to federal agency action” by “substitut[ing] for that district court authority an alternative scheme of review.” Axon, 598 U.S. at 185. ... Here, Congress took the latter path with the Advisers Act, providing that “a party aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission under this subchapter may obtain a review of such order in the [appropriate] United States court of appeals.” 15 U.S.C. § 80b-13(a); see also N.Y. Republican State Comm. v. SEC, 799 F.3d 1126, 1132 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (holding “the courts of appeals” have “exclusive jurisdiction” under 15 U.S.C. § 80b-13(a)).

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction ends when the operative amended complaint removes the federal claims that supported removal, leaving only state-law claims.

Montoya v. Mendoza · filed 2025-09-23

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s removal of reference to the Fourth Amendment was an omission of federal law claims that formed this Court’s basis for original jurisdiction under federal question jurisdiction. All that remains is Plaintiff’s NMCRA claim and other associated state law claims. Therefore, this Court is divested of subject matter jurisdiction and must remand Plaintiff’s case.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil cases arising under federal law, subject to statutes that expressly preclude review.

Zakarneh · filed 2026-01-29

While Plaintiff rightly notes that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil cases arising under federal law (see Dkt. No. 32 at 2), this jurisdiction is limited by other statutes that explicitly preclude review, see Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977) (agency actions are reviewable by federal courts under § 1331 “subject only to preclusion-of-review statutes created or retained by Congress”).

An amended complaint that removes all federal claims after removal eliminates federal-question jurisdiction when no other basis for jurisdiction exists.

Franklin D. Azar & Associates, P.C. v. Dominic X. Genco LLC · filed 2026-02-02

Now that the Court has granted leave to amend the Complaint, the operative complaint is Doc. 18-1, which contains only state law claims. The Parties are not diverse, and Defendants have not sought to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over this action in another way. ... Accordingly, the Court respectfully REMANDS this action to the Denver County District Court.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is lost when a post-removal amended complaint removes the federal claim that supplied it.

NAZARIO · filed 2026-03-02

The basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction was Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim, which provided federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (See ECF 1 ¶ 9.) Once Plaintiff amended her complaint to remove the 1983 claim, this Court lost its basis for jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction ends after removal when the operative amended complaint eliminates all federal claims.

Bryant · filed 2026-03-11

As an amendment to “cut[] out all” federal claims is precisely what has been effected by Plaintiffs in the Second Amended Complaint, and the record does not reflect that the parties are completely diverse, the case must “return to state court.” Jd. at 26, 39; see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 ends when the operative complaint, amended after removal, eliminates all federal claims.

Twitchell · filed 2026-04-22

The Court further finds that based on the SAC, Royal Canin applies and requires remand of this case back to the state court.

Section 1331 jurisdiction ends when an amended complaint in a removed case deletes the sole federal-law claim.

EVANS · filed 2026-05-28

Evans’s deletion of the sole federal-law claim has deprived this Court of federal-question jurisdiction, and the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over the territorial-law claims has “dissolved too.”

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an action raising an ERISA preemption issue without first resolving whether the plaintiff has standing under ERISA’s civil enforcement provision.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. v. Ilsley · filed 1981-08-03

The presence of this issue makes it unnecessary to determine, at this time, whether the plaintiff has standing under 29 U.S.C. § 1132. This civil action arises under the Constitution of the United States, and jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 ordinarily permits district court review of agency action unless a statute limits that review.

Champion International Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · filed 1988-06-24

In the ordinary case, agency action is reviewable in the district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 unless review has been limited by statute.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is subject to the Tucker Act’s limit on district court jurisdiction when the relief sought is monetary and exceeds $10,000.

Bedoni v. Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Commission · filed 1988-06-24

The scope of judicial review of agency decisions by district courts is limited, however, by the “preclusion-of-review statutes created or retained by Congress” to which 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is subject. ... The Tucker Act is one such limiting statute where the relief sought is monetary and in excess of $10,000.

Section 1331’s general grant of federal-question jurisdiction does not override a more specific statute assigning exclusive jurisdiction elsewhere.

ErieNet Inc v. Velocity Net Inc · filed 1998-09-25

We conclude that because the TCPA reflects Congress' intent to authorize consumer suits in state courts only, and because it is "a more specific statutory provision conferring exclusive jurisdiction elsewhere," appellants cannot rely on the general federal question jurisdiction of S 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over cases for which Congress withheld federal jurisdiction under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

BellSouth v. NC Utilities · filed 2002-06-05

In addition, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332 do not operate to confer jurisdiction over cases from which Congress withheld federal jurisdiction in the 1996 Act.

Section 1331 does not give district courts jurisdiction over a backpay claim against the United States exceeding $10,000 when the Tucker Act places that claim within the Court of Claims’ exclusive jurisdiction.

Keller v. Merit Systems Protection Board, and James M. Beggs, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Ad · filed 1982-06-21

Appellee asserts that a cause of action under 5 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3504 (Veterans’ Preference Act) and id. § 5596 (Backpay Act) is cognizable under the general federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The former Fifth Circuit and other circuits have held that the Tucker Act’s grant of jurisdiction to district courts over damages claims against the United States not exceeding $10,000, by implication, renders exclusive the Court of Claims’ jurisdiction over claims against the United States exceeding that amount. ... Because appellee’s backpay claim exceeded $10,000 at the time he initiated this action, see note 4 supra, the district court was without jurisdiction to adjudicate that claim.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over constitutional federal employment discrimination claims that Title VII does not cover.

Shirley DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otto E. PASSMAN, Congressman of the United States, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1977-01-03(a)

Any argument that in expanding Title VII in 1972 Congress excepted constitutionally-based federal employment discrimination claims from § 1331 must be rejected out of hand.

Section 1331 does not give lower federal courts jurisdiction to interpret a federal statute when Congress specifically intended to exclude that jurisdiction.

Marita Rogers v. Alan Platt and Kathy Platt · filed 1987-03-24

Congress is certainly free to create federal rights or duties and provide for their enforcement outside the federal district courts — in effect to modify section 1331 — as long as it stays within any constitutional limits, which are by no means clearly identified.... We believe that when Congress passed the PKPA it had such a specific intent directed to the issue of federal jurisdiction — an intent not to confer power to interpret its provisions on the lower federal courts.

Section 1331's general grant of federal-question jurisdiction does not apply when a specific statute assigns jurisdiction elsewhere.

Nicholson v. Hooters of Augusta, Inc. · filed 1998-03-10

Nevertheless, the general jurisdictional grant of section 1331 does not apply if a specific statute assigns jurisdiction elsewhere.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over a suit that would interfere with a state court’s ongoing control of a person under guardianship.

Struck v. Cook County Public Guardian · filed 2007-11-26

But the modern understanding is that the exception, except insofar as it bars the federal courts from entertaining nonadversary proceedings, such as the uncontested appointment of a guardian or the uncontested probate of a will, which are not cases or controversies within the meaning of Article III, is based on a pragmatic interpretation of the statutes that give the federal courts jurisdiction over cases at law and in equity (the current term, covering both, is “civil actions,” e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332). Such terms need not be interpreted to embrace all domestic-relations and probate matters, even if they are real cases.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a controversy arising under federal law does not itself overcome a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

DeLong Corporation v. Oregon State Highway Com'n · filed 1964-08-24

The plaintiff fails to recognize that the existence of a controversy which arises under federal law does not, in and of itself, divest a state of its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity from an unconsented suit.

Cotter Corporation v. Seaborg · filed 1966-12-28

Appellants have relied upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as giving the court jurisdiction to hear this suit but that statute does not waive the sovereign's immunity.

Section 1331's general federal-question grant does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity.

Nehf v. United States · filed 1969-04-25

As we have said before, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, suits against the United States may not be maintained without an express grant of statutory authority. Nehf v. United States, 278 F.Supp. 444, 446 (N.D.Ill.1967). The general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, does not confer such authority.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a civil-rights damages claim against a state when the state is not a person within the Civil Rights Act and sovereign immunity bars relief.

Savage v. United States · filed 1971-02-12

Plaintiff’s complaint as against the State of Minnesota must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. ... Nor is the State of Minnesota a “person” within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act. There is no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to review agency action arising under federal law when the United States has separately waived sovereign immunity; it does not itself waive that immunity.

American Airlines, Inc. v. Austin · filed 1991-11-26

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the District Court has original jurisdiction in all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Although § 1331 is not a general waiver of sovereign immunity, it gives the District Court subject matter jurisdiction to review agency action, providing that the suit arises under federal law and there is an express waiver of sovereign immunity by the Government.

Section 1331 supplies district court jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Harris v. United States · filed 1992-12-04

This action arises under federal law and, as such, jurisdiction is proper in federal district court'pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As stated earlier, however, § 1331 is not a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to a federal administrative forfeiture when sovereign immunity is waived.

Taft v. United States · filed 1993-06-04

In this case, Taft has asserted subject matter jurisdiction under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and a waiver of sovereign immunity under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 702. ... It is indisputable that the issues raised herein are federal questions. ... Thus, Taft’s Fifth Amendment claims will not be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

Section 1331 permits federal question jurisdiction when a federally created right or immunity is an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action.

Asselin v. Shawnee Mission Medical Center, Inc. · filed 1995-07-25

Federal question jurisdiction involves a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To establish federal question jurisdiction, a federally created right or immunity must be an essential element of the plaintiffs cause of action.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive sovereign immunity or overcome a statutory bar to judicial review.

Leistiko v. Michael P.W. Stone, Secretary of the Army National Guard Bureau Richard C. Alexander, the Adjutant G · filed 1998-03-04

The force of Fausto and Booth is in no way blunted by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives the federal district courts original jurisdiction of civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. Jurisdictional statutes such as this, moreover, do not operate as waivers of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim of freedom from attachment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act because that immunity is not an independent cause of action.

Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan ex rel. Muasher v. Layale Enterprises, S.A. · filed 2001-10-31

The right to be free from attachment, however, concerns FSIA immunity (28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1611) and is not an independent cause of action that would fall under § 1331 (federal question).

Section 1331 supplies subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute governed by federal law, but it does not waive federal sovereign immunity.

In Re Guardianship and Conservatorship of Blunt · filed 2005-02-15

The determination of who should be the payee of VA benefits for an incapacitated veteran is clearly governed by federal law as set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 5502(a) and 38 C.F.R. Part 13. Consequently, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. ... However, § 1331 is not enough to empower the court to consider the merits. There must also be a concomitant waiver of sovereign immunity, which § 1331 has been construed not to provide.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over § 1983 claims arising under federal law, and dismissing an immune defendant does not remove jurisdiction over those claims.

Keglovitz v. Illinois Department Of Children And Family Services · filed 2025-05-20

But, this Court has original jurisdiction over the § 1983 claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Dismissing an immune defendant does not change the Court’s jurisdiction over federal claims.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to declare state-court judgments void when the state courts had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter.

Schroeder v. Illinois · filed 1965-11-02

These allegations, even if true, dp not present either a ground for a federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, since the state court admittedly had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, Chance v. County Board of School Trustees, 332 F.2d 971, 974 (7th Cir. 1964); or a ground upon which to obtain review of the state court proceedings by a federal district court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343 through invocation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Goss v. State of Illinois, 312 F.2d 257, 259 (7th Cir. 1963).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a collateral attack on a state-court judgment when the state court had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter.

Schroeder v. State Of Illinois · filed 1966-02-07

These allegations, even if true, do not present either a ground for a federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, since the state court admittedly had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, Chance v. County Board of School Trustees, 332 F.2d 971, 974 (7th Cir. 1964); or a ground upon which to obtain review of the state court proceedings by a federal district court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343 through invocation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Goss v. State of Illinois, 312 F.2d 257, 259 (7th Cir. 1963).

Section 1331(a) does not authorize a federal district court to set aside or enjoin enforcement of a final state-court judgment on a due-process theory.

Yates v. Hodges · filed 1967-06-16(a)

Plaintiffs assert jurisdiction in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) which reads: … The district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. … This court relies upon that opinion and the many authorities cited therein, all of which stand for the proposition that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of Yates and Gary upon their claims as asserted in the complaint filed in this court. … Having traveled the only avenue open to them in the federal system, plaintiffs can travel no further here. An order will be entered dismissing the complaint for want of jurisdiction in this court.

Section 1331(a) gives district courts original, not appellate, jurisdiction and cannot authorize review or reversal of a final state-court judgment.

Malinou v. Cairns · filed 1968-10-15(a)

Neither 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) nor 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) can confer such appellate jurisdiction upon this Court. It is well settled that a United States District Court is a court of limited jurisdiction only and does not have appellate jurisdiction to review the decisions of state courts. … In my opinion the plaintiff’s claim that this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the merits of the instant action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (3) is wholly insubstantial and frivolous and could have been made only for jurisdictional purposes.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over constitutional claims that merely restate an SCRA challenge to a state-court judgment.

Vockroth v. FIRST CIRCUIT FAMILY COURT OF HAWAII · filed 2010-11-01

Mr. Vockroth contends that subject matter jurisdiction exists even without his SCRA claim because he has also brought claims under other constitutional provisions, such as the Fourteenth Amendment and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The court rejects these arguments, because his claims under these constitutional provisions are simply restatements of his SCRA claim, or elements of his SCRA claim, over which this court has no subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over challenges to federal agency rules and related declaratory claims under federal law.

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. National Indian Gaming Commission · filed 1993-06-28

The court finds that jurisdiction in this court is proper for both the APA challenges as well as the declaratory judgment action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as well as 5 U.S.C. § 702.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction for a declaratory judgment claim seeking to establish rights under the Lanham Act.

Post Performance, LLC v. Renaissance Imports, Inc. · filed 2004-08-10

Post Performance's complaint in Count I seeks a declaration of the parties' rights under the Lanham Act. This satisfies the federal question requirement.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a state declaratory judgment action seeking relief for a federal statutory violation even when that statute provides no private remedy.

Texas First National Bank v. Wu · filed 2004-12-09

In the captioned matter, although both parties agree the CBCA does not confer a private remedy, the Court disagrees with Plaintiffs’ jurisdictional analysis and concludes this is not a Merrell Dow type of action. ... The character of the declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs seek is federal in nature because it is expressly based on alleged violations of the CBCA, 12 U.S.C. § 1817(j).

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a complaint that necessarily raises a federal question about tribal regulatory authority.

In Re Otter Tail Power Company, Baker Electric, a North Dakota Rural Electric Cooperative Association v. Otter Tail Powe · filed 1997-06-23

Because Baker’s complaint necessarily presents a federal question, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction in the instant case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A district court assumed jurisdiction over an Indian tribe's federal challenge despite finding no wholly federal question because the tribe otherwise lacked a state forum for the requested remedy.

Tuscarora Nation of Indians v. Power Authority of New York · filed 1958-06-24

While this court does not feel that a wholly federal question is raised here, nor that the usual jurisdictional limits of this court are met by the parties herein, this court has not been able to find any authorization for an Indian Tribe or Nation to institute a suit in state court seeking the relief sought here. Solely because plaintiff would be without the right to seek its present remedy if it were allowed to maintain this action, this court assumes jurisdiction of the action, and proceeds to a consideration on the merits.

A suit's naming federal officers does not by itself create § 1331 jurisdiction, and plaintiffs who alleged no more did not establish jurisdiction over their damages claims.

National Indian Youth Council v. Morton · filed 1973-06-15

It is clear that the mere fact that a suit is against a federal officer does not support original jurisdiction thereof in the United States District Courts on the grounds of a federal question within the meaning of 28 United States Code § 1331. ... Plaintiffs therefore do not show jurisdiction of the Court to entertain their alleged damage claims.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over an action involving construction of federal laws and the parties’ agreement.

Rita, Inc. v. Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe · filed 1992-09-04

This Court also has jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Because this action involves construing federal laws and the agreement between ... the parties, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute, and jurisdiction over the parties.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction over an action centered on interpreting the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Ross v. Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe · filed 1992-12-30

The primary focus of this litigation relates to an interpretation of the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq., and the Court finds that it has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a constitutional or federal statutory provision under which the plaintiff is aggrieved to support federal-question jurisdiction.

Western Shoshone Business Council ex rel. Western Shoshone Tribe of the Duck Valley Reservation v. Babbitt · filed 1993-07-27

For this court to exercise federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, there must be a constitutional or federal statutory provision under which plaintiffs are aggrieved.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a challenge to a tribal-state gaming compact when resolving the challenge requires interpreting federal gaming law.

Willis v. Fordice · filed 1994-04-08

Because such a suit requires the Court to interpret the provisions of the IGRA, the Court finds that federal question jurisdiction is proper in this Court.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or the federal common law governing jurisdiction among federal, tribal, and state governments.

Sycuan Band of Mission Indians v. Roache · filed 1994-09-26

The Bands alleged jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331, 1337, and 1362, and the State did not contest those bases of jurisdiction. Section 1331 is enough; this case clearly arises under federal law, be it IGRA or the federal common law of Indian affairs that allocates jurisdiction among the federal government, the tribes, and the states.

Section 1331 does not give district courts jurisdiction over claims under the Act of 1901 when that Act’s remedy provision directs those claims to the Court of Claims.

Coleman v. United States of America Bureau of Indian Affairs · filed 1982-09-09

We therefore conclude that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 cannot provide a basis for jurisdiction in this Court because the very law that would give life to the plaintiffs' claims in this Court, the Act of 1901, is fatal to it.

Section 1331 requires a constitutional or federal statutory basis for federal-question jurisdiction; an intratribal enrollment dispute without one falls outside it.

Ordinance 59 Ass'n v. Babbitt · filed 1997-07-11

Section 1331 of Title 28 United States Code provides for jurisdiction over “all civil action arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” This section provides what is commonly referred to as “federal question” jurisdiction. However, “[f]or this court to exercise federal question jurisdiction there must a constitutional or federal statutory provision under which plaintiffs are aggrieved.” ... Plaintiffs have cited no such statutory provision. ... The court holds that enrollment and membership in the Eastern Shoshone Tribe raises intra-tribal issues where the Tribe enjoys sovereign immunity thereby depriving this court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims to enforce Tribal-State compacts entered under IGRA because those claims arise under federal law.

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Wilson · filed 1997-09-02

We conclude that the Bands’ claim to enforce the Compacts arises under federal law and thus that we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1362.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a tribal-enrollment claim under 25 U.S.C. § 163 when no final membership roll is at issue.

Ordinance 59 Association v. United States Department Of The Interior Secretary · filed 1998-12-01

Section 1331 fails to confer jurisdiction because no federal question exists in this case. This dispute does not involve the preparation of a final roll, and section 163 does not impose upon the Secretary a duty to act on membership applications.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over an implied federal cause of action under the Indian Child Welfare Act, allowing them to hear challenges to state child custody judgments authorized by that Act.

Doe v. Mann · filed 2005-07-18

As a threshold matter, we conclude that the federal court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and, in conjunction with ICWA, may use that jurisdiction to review the state court judgment terminating Mary Doe’s parental rights; the Rooker- Feldman doctrine did not bar the district court from exercis- ing jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over claims that tribal leaders violated a tribal constitution.

Vann v. Kempthorne · filed 2006-12-19

And a claim that tribal leaders violated the Cherokee Constitution does not “arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a tribe’s claim to enforce its ordinance against nonmembers when the tribe’s authority to do so depends on federal law; a dispute over enforcement against tribal members does not gain federal-question jurisdiction merely because federal law authorized the ordinance.

Native Village of Tyonek v. Puckett · filed 1992-03-16

We agree with the district court that we do not have subject matter jurisdiction under Boe to hear the Village’s complaint against the Kaloas and Constantines. ... We also conclude, however, that Boe does not preclude us from asserting subject matter jurisdiction over the Village’s complaint against the Pucketts and Slawsons. ... As in Johnson, the Village’s power to apply this ordinance will require a showing of its authority, under federal law, to enact and enforce this ordinance against non-members of the Village.

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

REID v. EVANS · filed 2023-01-23

Plaintiff has failed to establish a claim for civil conspiracy under § 1983; therefore, there are no claims that present a federal question over which the Court may exercise jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is implicated when a complaint alleges that federal law gives the United States exclusive jurisdiction over property.

Ambler v. Flathead Conservation District · filed 2024-05-28

As stated above, the Amblers have asserted that the Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Because the Amblers allege that the United States has exclusive jurisdiction over the Property pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 163, their Complaint raises a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over state law claims that present no federal question.

Queen · filed 2026-03-09

The Court lacks original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims because they present no federal question,40 and the Amended Complaint lacks jurisdictional facts that would support diversity jurisdiction, which applies when the parties in a civil action are “citizens of different states.”

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over ordinary contract claims between an Indian tribe or band and a private company.

Platform 10, LLC v. Battle Mountain Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians · filed 2021-11-08

As for Sections 1331 and 1362, Plaintiff’s reliance on these statutes is also error. ... The Ninth Circuit has held that contract claims between Indian tribes or bands and private companies do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 permits federal courts to review a tribal court’s jurisdiction after the parties exhaust tribal court remedies.

Attorney's Process & Investigation Services, Inc. v. Sac & Fox Tribe · filed 2005-11-15

The Supreme Court has clearly held that, after the parties have exhausted the remedies available in a tribal court, a district court has federal question jurisdiction to review whether a tribal court has exceeded the lawful limits of its jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a medical malpractice claim that presents no federal question.

Morton v. Baptist Memorial Hospital · filed 2021-10-08

Stated simply, Judge Ball found that Plaintiff’s claim did not present a federal question and diversity jurisdiction was lacking. Id.; see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,1332. ... The Court finds the R&R should be adopted as the opinion of the Court. This matter is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an ERISA alter ego claim alleging direct liability.

Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. DT Leasing, LLC · filed 2022-06-15

Under Prather Plumbing and its predecessors, this is a direct liability claim that arises under ERISA and confers federal question jurisdiction just as it would if asserted against Diamond Trucking itself.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction when a claim arises under ERISA.

Manderson v. Fairview Health Services · filed 2022-07-05

The Court will deny Fairview’s Motion to Dismiss because it has federal question jurisdiction through ERISA.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a colorable ERISA claim on the face of the complaint without requiring the plaintiff to prove that a binding ERISA plan exists.

Thompson v. Pioneer Bank & Trust · filed 2025-03-21

Thus, Thompson need not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the SCA was an ERISA plan binding on the parties for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over his ERISA claim in Count 1. ... Because a federal question is presented on the face of Thompson’s Complaint, this Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a demand for benefits under an independent employment contract merely because the contract measures those benefits by ERISA plans.

Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad v. Schieffer · filed 2013-03-28

In these circumstances, we agree with the district court that the benefits sought in Schieffer’s arbitration demand were not claims for benefits due under an ERISA plan. Accordingly, the court lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction to consider arbitrability, or any other issue arising under the Employment Agreement.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a plan fiduciary’s ERISA reimbursement claim based on federal common law when ERISA does not authorize the suit.

Qualchoice, Inc. v. Rowland · filed 2004-05-11

Therefore, QualChoice’s action to enforce the reimbursement provision is not cognizable under federal common law, and QualChoice cannot rely upon federal common law to supply jurisdiction over its claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.