28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is not established when ERISA conflict preemption supplies only a defense to state law claims.

Giles v. NYLCare Health Plans · filed 1999-04-09

The presence of conflict-preemption does not establish federal question jurisdiction. Rather than transmogrifying a state cause of action into a federal one--as occurs with complete preemption--conflict preemption serves as a defense to a state action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that ERISA does not completely preempt.

Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Intercare Health Plans, Inc. · filed 2000-04-25

The propriety of removal in this case depends upon whether we have federal question jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives federal courts “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Thus, unlike conflict preemption, complete preemption creates federal question jurisdiction. ... For the reasons discussed, we conclude that ERISA fails to completely preempt ASI’s state law claims. Accordingly, we lack subject matter jurisdiction over this case and remand the action to Marion County Superior Court.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims the court finds completely preempted by ERISA despite the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Hobbs v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama · filed 2000-06-16

Thus, the well-pleaded complaint rule is not a bar to this court's jurisdiction. Because the court concludes that the plaintiffs' claims are preempted by ERISA, the court has jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that ERISA completely preempts because they are based on the denial of plan benefits.

Cristantielli v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Texas · filed 2000-08-01

For now it is enough to determine that the plan at issue is an employee benefit plan as defined by ERISA and at least some of the negligence, fraud, and restraint of trade claims fall within the complete preemption of ERISA § 502 to the extent that those claims are actually based upon the denial of benefits. Therefore, these claims arise under federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that ERISA completely preempts.

Funkhouser v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2002-05-15

If a claim is completely preempted by ERISA, then the claim arises under federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim based on ERISA complete preemption only if the claim seeks relief available under ERISA section 502(a); ordinary ERISA preemption alone does not suffice.

Arana v. Ochsner Health Plan · filed 2002-08-15

Irrespective of whether Arana's claims are subject to ordinary preemption pursuant to section 514, subject matter jurisdiction will not lie unless, through those claims, Arana seeks relief available to him under section 502(a).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an ERISA suit whose well-pleaded complaint asserts federal claims against the defendant, even when the court also uses veil piercing to impose further liability.

Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Pension, Health Benefit and Educational Funds v. Lutyk · filed 2003-06-11

By contrast, the "well-pleaded complaint'' in this action asserted claims based on ERISA for both the unremitted employee wage deductions and the unpaid employer contributions. ... Whatever implications Peacock has on the statutory authority of district courts to "pierce the corporate veil” in ERISA cases, we are satisfied that the District Court properly invoked federal subject-matter jurisdiction over this dispute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an ERISA claim if ERISA does not authorize the suit.

Community Health Plan of Ohio v. Mosser · filed 2003-12-19

CHPO’s claim did not implicate any other ERISA subsection that would permit this action, and federal question jurisdiction does not exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 if ERISA does not authorize the suit.

Section 1331 does not supply federal jurisdiction for every federal claim; it does not fill the gap when an ERISA plan seeks legal reimbursement outside the equitable claims authorized by ERISA § 502(a)(3).

Leipzig, Steven v. AIG Life Insur Co · filed 2004-03-25

Although today almost every federal claim can be heard in federal court under §1331, Great-West shows that there are still lacunae.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on an ordinary ERISA preemption defense; complete preemption can make a state-law claim arise under federal law.

Lafayette v. Cobb · filed 2004-11-03

While even Counts II and III may be preempted by ERISA § 514, 29 U.S.C. § 1144, federal preemption other than the “complete preemption” of § 502(a)(1)(B) is a defense that does not appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a tribal lease dispute when federal law neither creates the claim nor supplies a substantial question necessary to the well-pleaded complaint.

Stimson Lumber Company v. The Coeur d'Alene Tribe · filed 2023-03-02

Because federal law does not create the cause of action, and because a substantial question of federal law is not a necessary element of Stimson’s well-pleaded complaint, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case and must dismiss.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents only a state-law contract dispute and its asserted Fair Housing Act claim does not implicate that Act.

Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware County, Pa. · filed 1992-02-24

After hearing the evidence presented by the parties, the court is convinced that the complaint does not present a federal question. Since the requirements ... of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 cannot be met, this court is without jurisdiction to hear the case at bar.

Section 1331 grants federal question jurisdiction over challenges to federal agency conduct under federal law even when the claimed damages are measured by related government subcontracts.

A & S Council Oil Co., Inc. v. Saiki · filed 1992-08-06

Section 1331 is the natural choice, and plaintiffs’ choice, for a grant of jurisdiction. ... Since plaintiffs challenge the conduct of the Administrator of the SBA in entering into and implementing the 1979 Agreement and establishing a pricing mechanism at odds with the purposes of the section 8(a) program, as well as with the regulations and procedures promulgated pursuant thereto, and since they claim money damages quantified by their subcontracts with the SBA, a grant of federal question jurisdiction is plain.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a case requiring interpretation of federal law and regulations even when the case involves a contract.

Katz v. Cisneros · filed 1994-02-15

Even where a case is contractual, however, the presence of issues which require the interpretation of federal law and regulation necessarily give rise to federal questions.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort and quasi contract rather than federal law.

Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany · filed 1994-07-01

Nor is this case within the federal question jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Mr. Princz’s claims against Germany sound in tort and quasi contract, not in federal law. Regardless whether Germany is entitled to sovereign immunity apart from the FSIA, therefore, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Princz’s claims.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a disappointed bidder’s challenge to a federal contract award when the action arises under federal procurement statutes.

B.K. Instrument, Inc. v. United States · filed 1983-08-04

We have no difficulty in concluding that BK’s action arises under both section 724 of the Defense Appropriations Act of 1981 and 10 U.S.C. § 2305(c), already quoted, and that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 thus affords a jurisdictional basis.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over Indian affairs, and a tribe’s participation in a contract alone does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

Tri-Millennium v. Jena Band of Choctaw · filed 1998-12-16

That provision does not give exclusive jurisdiction over Indian affairs to the federal district courts. The mere fact that an Indian Tribe is one of the parties in a contract does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over constitutional and APA challenges to agency action even when the dispute also involves a government contract.

Lulac East Park Place Trust v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development · filed 1998-12-16

In this case, plaintiff alleges that HUD procedures for foreclosure violate due process and that HUD acted arbitrarily under the APA in ordering foreclosure. As a result, there is federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law breach of contract and fraud claims that do not arise under federal law.

Price v. Phoenix Home Life Insurance · filed 1999-03-22

The plaintiffs claims of breach of contract and fraud are state law claims and thus, do not arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Accordingly, subject matter jurisdiction for these claims cannot be predicated on a federal question.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim when a collective bargaining agreement enters the case only through a federal preemption defense and complete preemption does not apply.

Alexander v. UDV North America, Inc. · filed 1999-12-16

Given these precedents, it is clear that the doctrine of complete preemption does not reach the breach-of-contract claim asserted by Plaintiffs in this case. Plaintiffs do not refer or allude to a CBA in their Complaint, and they cannot be accused of “artful pleading” where the Guarantee upon which they rely is an individual agreement which stands apart from and makes no reference to a CBA.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a complaint alleging breach of a Standard Flood Insurance Policy because it raises a substantial federal question on its face.

Newton v. Capital Assurance Company, Inc. · filed 2001-03-29

Thus, a complaint alleging breach of an SFIP satisfies § 1331 by raising a substantial federal question on its face.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment claim when the validity of a tribal gaming contract depends on federal approval under IGRA.

Gaming World International, Ltd. v. White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians · filed 2003-01-24

By contrast, the petition in this case raises the issue of whether the March 6, 1992 contract received valid federal approval under the IGRA regulatory scheme. It thus invokes federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract dispute for unpaid motor-carrier charges when no claim arises under a filed tariff.

Central Transport International v. Sterling Seating, Inc. · filed 2005-02-15

Simply put, there is no federal question in this action because Central Transport has not alleged that it seeking amounts due under a filed tariff. Instead, Central Transport’s claims arise solely from the contract for motor services made with Sterling. Thus, because this action does not arise “under any Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies,” this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337. The Court also lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because this is state law contract dispute, and § 1332, because this is a contract dispute for less than the jurisdictional amount required for diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction, but citing it as the only federal statute in a complaint does not establish that jurisdiction.

Stroupe v. Rice · filed 2023-06-29

Because plaintiff’s reference to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction, the Court next considers whether diversity jurisdiction is present.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint merely references federal statutes without alleging facts that support a claim under them.

Williams v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2021-05-26

Although the Complaint briefly references the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) and the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) (Compl. ¶ 27, pp. 2, 34),3 there are no facts alleged that would support a claim for relief arising under these statutes.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction from a bare assertion that a claim is federal when the existence of a federal cause of action is in doubt.

Curiale v. Reissman · filed 1992-07-06

A bald statement that a claim is federal is not sufficient in such circumstances. To survive a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), plaintiffs’ complaint must state a cause of action actually “arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim presented under an unspecified legal theory without an asserted federal claim.

Cramer v. State of Florida · filed 1997-07-24

To the extent that appellants attempt to make this claim under some other unspecified legal theory, we lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear this claim. The appellants invoked the district court's subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the ADA only. At no point in their complaint did they invoke the federal question jurisdiction of the district court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or assert claims under a federal statute other than the ADA.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction when the operative amended complaint asserts only state law claims, even if it lists federal statutes and asserts federal question jurisdiction.

Riley v. Fairbanks Capital Corporation · filed 2007-03-16

Although Riley listed some federal statutes in the complaint’s preamble and again asserted that the district court had federal question jurisdiction over her FDCPA, RESPA, and TILA claims, her second amended complaint did not contain such claims or other claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law wrongful-discharge claim that merely cites a federal statute when any federal issue is incidental to resolving the dispute.

Rowe v. Peoples Bancorp, Inc. · filed 2018-12-19

Citation to the ADEA is merely referential. While Defendants’ confusion is understandable, the Court reads this as a Harless claim under West Virginia state law, with any question of federal law being incidental to the fact-based resolution of the dispute. As such, the Court finds no federal question jurisdiction.

Merely invoking a federal statute does not establish Section 1331 jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no federal claim.

Parker v. Ebay · filed 2024-04-05

In this case, although Plaintiffs allege that jurisdiction is “invoked” pursuant to the Clayton Antitrust Act, Plaintiffs fail to allege a claim under the Clayton Antitrust Act or any other federal statutes that might give rise to federal question jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction when a complaint invokes federal law without alleging facts that establish a federal claim.

Hayes v. ASCAP (NFPO) (inc) · filed 2024-09-16

Furthermore, although Plaintiff has referenced generally the U.S. Constitution and other federal law, merely invoking federal law without alleging any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal question jurisdiction when a liberally construed pro se complaint asserts a federal statutory claim without naming the statute.

Self v. Bomnin Motors · filed 2024-09-17

However, given the liberal pleading standard for pro se parties,3 the Court finds Self’s claim against GM Financial satisfies the federal question jurisdiction requirements as Self essentially asserts a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely framed as a constitutional claim when the claim does not arise under federal law.

George H. Fowler, Esq. v. Gordon Parks, Winger Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1997-01-23

Although district courts must exercise caution in dismissing claims sua sponte, and should ordinarily allow an opportunity to file opposing papers, the complaint made abundantly clear that Fowler's claim did not arise under the 14th Amendment, any other constitutional provision, or any federal law. Indeed, Fowler's appellate memorandum suggests no plausible basis for subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that truly arises under federal constitutional law, but a state-law claim does not qualify merely because it is framed in federal constitutional terms.

Justiana v. Niagara County Department of Health · filed 1999-04-02

Plaintiffs have attempted to articulate both claims as those arising under the federal constitution. However, it is clear to the Court that only one of these claims — that defendants violated the equal protection doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment — truly arises under federal constitutional law. The Court therefore has federal question jurisdiction over the equal protection claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on broad allegations of constitutional violations when the complaint raises no specific constitutional cause of action.

Sanchez · filed 2025-10-20

The Court also does not find sufficient basis in Plaintiff’s complaint for Defendant’s third basis for jurisdiction regarding constitutional rights, because Plaintiff does not raise a specific constitutional cause of action.

Section 1331 cannot be used as an original district-court action to bypass an agency’s exclusive primary jurisdiction and the exclusive statutory procedure for reviewing its orders.

D. L. Piazza Co. v. West Coast Line, Inc. · filed 1954-03-02

The appellant seeks first to find jurisdiction in the district court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. However, this would make the action an original suit to recover reparations under the Shipping Act, and the Supreme Court has made it clear that the Federal Maritime Board has exclusive primary jurisdiction over such matters. ... The appellant cannot proceed originally here in the district court without defeating this primary jurisdiction. Thus, the appellant’s only remedy is to review the decision of the Board by way of the appropriate statutory procedure.

Section 1331 does not provide primary pre-election jurisdiction over union-election rights when Congress supplied an exclusive administrative and post-election judicial remedy under the L.M.R.D.A.

McArthy v. District Lodge No. 9 · filed 1966-02-18

The rights plaintiff seeks to invoke here are those created by § 481. He has alleged no pre-existing substantive rights under federal law which would support federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1337. The comprehensive and careful detailing of remedies under the L.M.R.D.A. rules against any contention that a federal district court might have primary pre-election jurisdiction of § 481 issues under the general jurisdiction statutes, 28. U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.

Section 1331 does not authorize direct district-court review of an NLRB representation decision absent extraordinary circumstances or a plain violation of an unambiguous mandatory provision of the National Labor Relations Act.

Big Y Supermarkets, Inc. v. McCulloch · filed 1967-01-19

Federal question jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1337. … In the court’s opinion, the complaint is in reality an action for review of the Board’s determination despite the plaintiff’s careful pleading which describes the Board’s action as a violation of the Act and speaks in terms of striking down an order of the Board, thereby seeking to embrace the principle of Leedom v. Kyne, 1958, 358 U.S. 184, 188, 79 S.Ct. 180, 3 L.Ed.2d 210. … It concludes simply that the ... exception is inapplicable because (1) there are no “extraordinary circumstances”, Boire v. Greyhound Corp., supra, 376 U.S. at p. 479, 84 S.Ct. 894, (2) there has been no plain violation by the Board of an “unambiguous and mandatory” provision of the Act, Boire v. Miami Herald Publishing Co., 5 Cir., 1965, 343 F.2d 17, 21, and (3) there is available to the plaintiff another method of securing judicial review. … The plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied and the defendants’ motion to dismiss is allowed.

Section 1331 does not restore judicial review that Congress has precluded merely because a complaint labels agency action arbitrary, capricious, or unconstitutional.

Heffelman v. Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Department of Interior of the United States · filed 1967-05-24

When judicial review of the merits of an administrative decision is denied by statute, such review does not become available through bolstering but conelusionary allegations in the complaint alleging the action of the administrative agency to be arbitrary and capricious, a denial of constitutional rights, or similar allegations. ... We thus conclude that the trial court properly held that jurisdiction did not exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question); 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus, see Prairie Band of Pottawatomie Tribe of Indians v. Udall, 10 Cir., 355 F.2d 364, 367); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) (venue); or 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (declaratory judgment).

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over claims that rights secured by a federal veterans’ benefits statute were denied in violation of due process.

Taylor v. United States · filed 1974-11-13

First of all, the rights sought to be protected by plaintiffs are secured to them under the Veterans Benefits Act, 38 U.S.C. §§ 601-612. These rights and the claims.made by plaintiffs in their petition arise under this federal law and therefore jurisdiction was properly invoked before this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a facial constitutional challenge to a federal veterans’ benefits statute when the action arises under the Constitution and Title 38 does not divest that jurisdiction.

Disabled American Veterans v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 1992-01-31

Accordingly, as the plain meaning of Section 211(a) does not divest this Court of jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ constitutional claims the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 since this action arises under the Constitution of the United States.

Section 1331 grants federal district courts jurisdiction over federal questions but does not bypass the bar on review of VA benefits determinations in 38 U.S.C. § 511.

Fermin v. United States · filed 2017-08-04

Although 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides federal district courts with original jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” the statute does not provide a means of bypassing section 511’s bar on review of benefits determinations.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to enforce an IRS regulation that imposes no mandatory disclosure duty.

Continental Electric Company v. Kurtz · filed 1980-06-04

The district court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In accordance with Einhorn v. DeWitt, 618 F.2d 347, No.79-2709 (5th Cir. 1980), we find no mandatory duty imposed by the regulation or basis for jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to compel disclosures under a discretionary IRS procedural regulation that creates no mandatory duty.

Einhorn v. Charles O. Dewitt, District Director Internal Revenue Service · filed 1980-07-03

We hold that the regulation is discretionary as to disclosures, and that federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear claims arising thereunder.

Section 1331 grants jurisdiction over federal constitutional and statutory claims, but claims under the Puerto Rico Constitution do not supply a federal question.

New Progressive Party v. Hernandez Colon · filed 1991-11-15

The claims that Laws 85 and 86 violate the Constitution of Puerto Rico do not create a question that arises under the federal Constitution or laws. These are issues to be properly raised in the Commonwealth courts.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction for an action arising under NEPA and other federal enactments.

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers of United States Army · filed 1972-08-04

This suit arises under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq., and other federal enactments (En. 4). Subject matter jurisdiction exists by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and venue is properly laid under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim that a federally funded project violates NEPA.

Julis v. City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa · filed 1972-08-08

This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ complaint filed July 19, 1972, seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining certain street construction work on Mt. Vernon Road in Cedar Rapids, Linn County, Iowa, and a declaratory judgment that such construction is in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). ... The court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter. 5 U.S.C. § 702, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not establish federal subject matter jurisdiction unless the plaintiff also has Article III standing.

Lutostanski v. Brown · filed 2023-12-12

But compliance with § 1331 is necessary but not sufficient for federal subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs must also show that they have Article III standing.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question that the plaintiff has standing to raise.

Sabon Investments, Inc. v. Braniff Airways, Inc. · filed 1982-03-22

Since under Arizona law, which both parties agree is applicable, tort actions are not assignable absent specific legislative authorization, the court is constrained to rule that the named plaintiff’s assignment is void with regard to bringing an action under 49 U.S.C. § 1374 and as a result this court does not have before it, in the complaint, a federal question on which to base its jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a health care provider has derivative standing to bring an ERISA civil enforcement claim for assigned benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan.

Memorial Hospital System v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arkansas · filed 1993-08-26

Since the plan in question falls within the broad language of ERISA, and Plaintiff would have derivative standing to bring a civil enforcement action under ERISA, subject matter jurisdiction exists based upon a federal question.

Section 1331 retains original federal-question jurisdiction over a RICO action when the plaintiff fails to plead statutory RICO standing, because that failure goes to the merits.

Lerner v. Fleet Bank, N.A. · filed 2003-01-22

Because RICO standing is not a constitutional prerequisite to jurisdiction and the determination that proximate causation is lacking is sufficiently intertwined with the merits of the RICO claim, however, we find that dismissal for failure to plead proximate causation between the alleged RICO violation and plaintiffs’ injuries does not divest the district court of original jurisdiction and, therefore, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction would be permissible pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction through ERISA complete preemption when a healthcare provider’s contract claims are independent of an ERISA plan and the provider lacks standing under ERISA’s civil enforcement provision.

Sheridan Healthcorp., Inc. v. Neighborhood Health Partnership, Inc. · filed 2006-09-22

District courts have original jurisdiction over diversity cases and cases arising under federal law. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. As NHP claims that removal is proper in this case because Sheridan’s claims arise under federal law, the Court will only look to see if such federal-question jurisdiction is present. ... The doctrine of complete preemption does not apply to this case because Sheridan’s claims do not relate directly to an ERISA plan and because Sheridan does not have standing under Section 502(a).

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claims lack supporting facts and the plaintiffs lack standing to pursue criminal charges.

Gilbert v. Bartel · filed 2008-04-15

As the Gilberts do not allege that diversity of citizenship exists in this case, they must establish federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The district court held that federal question jurisdiction did not exist because the Gilberts alleged no facts that would support a claim under ERISA, they lacked standing to press criminal charges against Bartel, and they alleged no facts that would support a civil rights claim. The district court held that, as federal jurisdiction was lacking, it could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Gilberts’ state law claims. We agree with the district court’s conclusion that federal jurisdiction does not exist in this case; however, we modify the judgment of dismissal to reflect that any pendent state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1331 provides original federal-question jurisdiction over a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff has constitutional standing, even if the plaintiff lacks statutory standing to pursue the claim.

Boutte v. Lopinto, III · filed 2021-12-16

Rather, the Order held only that Ms. Robinson lacked statutory standing under the survival action article of the Louisiana Civil Code. Therefore, the Court had original subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Robinson’s Section 1983 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331’s federal-question analysis follows the establishment of standing.

Yan v. Tarrant County Sheriff Department · filed 2024-03-19

The Court OVERRULES the second because Yan applies inapplicable case law and because the federal-question analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is conducted after standing has been established.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a facial federal claim when the plaintiff lacks Article III standing to assert it.

Aslani v. Credit One Bank, N.A. · filed 2024-11-20

The plaintiff’s complaint states a claim under FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., on its face. However, the plaintiff does not have standing to assert that cause of action. And therefore, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit.

Section 1331’s grant of federal-question jurisdiction does not dispense with Article III standing requirements.

Jackson v. Austin Capital Bank SSB · filed 2025-05-02

But the statutory grant of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not obviate the constitutional requirements of Article III.

Section 1331 requires more than passing references to federal statutes to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

VIGNE v. RMS/PHH MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS INC. · filed 2024-10-25

While the Complaint and Mr. Vigne’s response to the Motions to Dismiss that are pending in this case do reference some federal statutes (e.g., the Patriot Act,2 the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Community Development Act of 1987), ECF Nos. 4, 4-2, and 27, these passing references, without more, are insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction in the context of this case.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the federal statute invoked by the plaintiff does not apply to the defendant.

Elias v. Naperville Eye Associates, Ltd. · filed 1996-06-18

Elias alleges federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which grants the court “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under ... the laws ... of the United States.” Yet, the federal law out of which the lawsuit supposedly “arises,” the ADEA, does not apply to Naperville. Therefore, Elias’ jurisdictional allegation is erroneous.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s claim falls outside the federal law invoked.

Citizen Advocacy Center v. Dupage Airport Authority · filed 1998-05-26

Plaintiffs’ claim is outside the domain of § 47106, and therefore does not come within the federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff cannot invoke an applicable federal statute, so the court cannot consider an ERISA fee request in that action.

Kaelin v. Tenneco, Inc. · filed 1998-12-01

In this case, Kaelin’s failure to invoke ERISA means that this case does not arise under federal law. Thus, Tenneco’s alleged entitlement to attorneys’ fees does not turn on the interpretation of a federal statute, since no such statute is applicable. The court, therefore, lacks subject matter jurisdiction and cannot entertain a request for attorneys’ fees under ERISA.

Section 1331 requires more than conclusory references to a federal civil rights statute to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Guillory v. Flewellen · filed 1999-12-03

Guillory’s conclusional references to the Civil Rights Act, are not, without more, sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint cites inapplicable federal statutes but its claims sound in state law.

Riser v. Pollitt · filed 2002-08-13

The district court did not err in determining that Riser’s complaint did not raise an issue of federal law. Although he cited federal statutes relating to CERCLA and non-profit corporations (which the district court properly found to be inapplicable), his complaint clearly sounds in state statutory and tort law.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or a claim necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law; references to federal statutes alone do not establish jurisdiction.

Olsen v. Quality Continuum Hospice, Inc. · filed 2004-02-25

Specifically, Olsen has not demonstrated that federal law provides him with a private right of action or that his claims otherwise depend on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Despite Olsen’s references to the Social Security Act and Medicare regulations, his claims do not present a federal question over which the Court may exercise 28 U.S.C. § 1331 jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the complaint cites constitutional or federal statutory provisions.

Brooks-McCollum v. Emerald Ridge Service Corp. · filed 2006-02-10

Her citation of various ... constitutional and federal statutory provisions does not transform these state law claims into causes of action “arising under” the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the pleaded facts are not covered by any federal statute invoked by the plaintiff.

Vazquez v. Commercial Union Insurance · filed 2006-02-17

After a review of the remaining claims in the complaint, the Court, again, concurs with Royal, thus, there is not federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the facts of the case simply are not covered by any of the plead federal statutes.

Section 1331 requires factual allegations sufficient to show that a claim raises a federal question; an unsupported reference to race discrimination does not suffice.

George v. JP Morgan Chase Manhattan Bank · filed 2007-04-03

He did not demonstrate that his claims raised a “federal question” because, although his complaint referred to discrimination based on race, it did not contain any specific allegations of fact that supported an inference of discrimination.

A mere citation to a federal statute does not establish federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no facts bringing the dispute within that statute.

Motjuste Tirade of Vim Andre Juste v. Brennan · filed 2014-04-21

The mere citation of this statute in a Complaint that raises no allegations related to an Indian child custody proceeding does not give this Court federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court cannot establish federal question jurisdiction under this statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint cites inapplicable federal statutes.

Laari v. Delara · filed 2024-05-03

While Plaintiff cites federal statutes in his Amended Complaint, it is well recognized that a plaintiff cannot create federal question jurisdiction merely by citing inapplicable federal statutes in his complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal statute invoked in the complaint is plainly irrelevant to the facts alleged.

McLafferty · filed 2026-04-30

Because federal statute invoked by Plaintiff in his Complaint is plainly irrelevant to the factual background giving rise to the present action, the Court finds that the present action does not “arise under” the laws of the United States and thus that it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the action.

Section 1331 does not support jurisdiction when a controversy can be decided under local law without interpreting federal law and the federal issue is merely incidental or collateral.

Clinton Community Hospital Corp. v. Southern Maryland Medical Center · filed 1974-04-16

The first claim does not by itself state a claim cognizable in federal court, as no federal right is asserted. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... A mere incidental or collateral federal question may appear or may lurk in the background of the record, but this is not a sufficient or adequate basis upon which federal jurisdiction may attach. ... that when the controversy between the parties may be decided under local law without the necessity of interpreting a federal statute, there is no federal jurisdiction.

A claim does not arise under § 1331 when its primary and controlling issues are governed by state law and federal law bears only incidentally on a subsidiary ownership issue.

Salyer Land Company v. County of Kings · filed 1960-12-20

The primary, direct and dominant issues in this case must be determined by the California state tax law, including as the principal issue whether this tax is applicable to appellant taxpayer under the terms and provisions of that state law, rather than by the federal law which here concerns not the validity or applicability of the state tax as to barley owners but only the incidental question whether the appellant itself was on the tax levy date the owner of the barley taxed against appellant under the state law.

A case does not arise under federal law within § 1331 when constitutional questions are merely incidental to the claim’s principal state-law objective, even if federal constitutional provisions may need to be construed or applied.

Pierre v. Frank M. Jordan, Secretary of State of California · filed 1964-08-05

All other constitutional questions sought to be raised are incidental to the purpose of setting aside the formation of the water district, this constituting the gist of the action. So understood, the case cannot be said to “arise” under the Constitution of the United States. The fact that it may be necessary in the course of the litigation to construe or apply provisions of the Constitution is not sufficient to give application to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over a state contract claim merely because federal regulations mandate some contract terms.

Ore-Ida Foods, Inc. v. Richmond Transportation Services, Inc. · filed 1992-02-04

However, the mere fact that the ICC mandates that some terms be included in that contract does not make the case a federal question “arising under” that law. The suit is instead a state law case based on the terms of that agreement.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim for wrongful refusal to transfer stock merely because federal securities law and regulations may be implicated.

Chessen v. American Registrar and Transfer Co. · filed 1998-05-22

A cause of action for the wrongful refusal to transfer stock arises under state, rather than federal, law, notwithstanding the fact that regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and federal law is likely to be implicated.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because resolving a state-law claim requires interpreting or applying a federal statute.

Diaz v. General Security Services Corp. · filed 2000-04-24

The mere fact that resolution of a piece of litigation requires interpretation or application of a federal statute does not give federal courts subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a service-contract dispute merely because federal funds were used to purchase vehicles involved in the underlying transit program.

Transit Express Inc v. Ettinger, Joel P. · filed 2001-04-12

The fact that federal funds were used to purchase the vehicles in compliance with the Section 5310 program is completely irrelevant to the present action and may not be used as a basis for bringing this action in federal court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims merely because CERCLA or a federal consent decree relates to the dispute.

MSOF Corp v. Exxon Corporation · filed 2002-06-20

We hold that neither CERCLA nor the mere existence of the federal consent decree creates federal “arising under” jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a court is asked to construe a federal statute.

Woods v. City & County of Denver · filed 2003-04-16

Contrary to the district court’s conclusion, construction of a federal statute, standing alone, is not a “cause of action,” nor does it confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that can succeed on a theory requiring no resolution of a federal issue.

Claytor v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. · filed 2016-05-31

Thus, to the extent the plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief are based on the assertion that their vehicles are illegal to operate in Virginia, their claims could rise or fall entirely based on the interpretation of state law. ... Because none of the plaintiffs’ claims arise under federal law, the court does not have original jurisdiction over the cases pursuant to § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the defendant was obligated to follow FINRA or stock-exchange trading rules.

First Trust Advisors L.P. v. Virtu Americas LLC · filed 2018-09-30

That Virtu was obligated to follow FINRA’s best execution rules or NYSE and NASDAQ rules regarding MOC orders does not create an issue of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based only on an incidental reference to federal constitutional rights.

Checkovage v. Bandera Central Appraisal District · filed 2021-01-07

This incidental reference constitutional rights doesn’t convert any of Plaintiffs’ purely state law claims into federal ones.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law dispute merely because the disputed payments come from Social Security benefits.

Jiggetts v. Prologue, Inc. · filed 2022-06-17

To the extent that Mr. Jiggetts disputes the monthly amounts withheld from his Social Security check, such a dispute raises a claim arising under State law, if at all, as the source of the funds does not convert the claim to a federal question.

Section 1331 gives a court federal-question jurisdiction over a Section 1983 claim despite the plaintiff’s failure to file a state notice of claim.

London v. Nassau County Correctional Facility · filed 2022-08-05

Thus, Plaintiff has properly invoked this Court’s federal question subject matter jurisdiction. ... Thus, Plaintiff’s admitted failure to file a notice of claim has no bearing on this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate his Section 1983 claims.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction to decide entitlement to unemployment benefits under state law.

Blackford v. Employment Board · filed 1997-06-04

Unfortunately for Mr. Blackford, the issue of whether he is now entitled to unemployment benefits under Kan. Stat. ... Ann. § 706(b) does not fall within the federal courts' diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a breach-of-contract counterclaim that raises no question of federal law.

RN Wellness LLC v. Essentials Hero LLC · filed 2022-11-22

EH’s counterclaim for breach of contract is a state law claim; therefore, it does not “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 1331. There is no federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state unemployment benefits dispute when the complaint raises no federal statute, constitutional provision, or treaty.

Witham v. Employment Appeal Board · filed 2022-12-22

Nothing in Witham’s complaint gives any indication that a federal statute is at issue or that her claim arises under the Constitution or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-administered unemployment benefits merely because the benefits include federal funds.

David v. Virginia Employment Commissioner · filed 2025-02-25

The disbursement of federal unemployment funds does not implicate federal jurisdiction. That is because those federal benefits are deployed to individuals through state actors, such as VEC.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the alleged conduct violates only state law.

Sires v. Washington · filed 1963-03-13

Appellant has not alleged grounds for federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. He does not allege that the Board has, or threatens to, violate a provision of the constitution or laws of the United States, but only that its (undisclosed) action is contrary to the statutes and constitution of the State of Washington.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over counterclaims that assert only state-law claims.

Lawson · filed 2026-05-31

Because both claims are state law claims, federal question jurisdiction does ... not exist. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a defamation claim arising solely under state law.

Chavez v. Hesler · filed 2022-12-05

The court agrees that the plaintiff’s claim of defamation does not confer federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over state-law defamation claims absent a valid federal question.

Henderson v. Jeske · filed 2025-02-06

Oregon law governs defamation actions, which are well-established as state law claims, and the federal courts do not recognize jurisdiction over them in the absence of a valid federal question.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or the Constitution; a state law defamation claim does not qualify.

Jackson v. Godfrey and Kahn Law Firm · filed 2025-10-08

A federal court has jurisdiction to consider and decide cases that involve violations of federal laws or the federal Constitution. 28 U.S.C. §1331. ... The plaintiff has not alleged a claim or a set of facts that would give rise to a claim under federal law or the federal Constitution. He has asserted that the private attorney representing another incarcerated person lied about him and he wants an apology from the attorney and the law firm. That sounds like a defamation claim, and a claim for defamation arises under state, not federal, law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over slander and defamation claims for which there is no federal cause of action.

Little · filed 2026-04-02

Thus, the Court may not exercise “federal question” jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a wholly insubstantial claim.

Hafzalla v. Czarnomski · filed 2023-01-23

The Court therefore finds the claim to be “wholly insubstantial” and that it lacks jurisdiction. ... For the reasons discussed above, the Court DISMISSES the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when the only federal claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Thomas v. Myers · filed 2023-06-05

Because Plaintiff’s due process claim—her only federal claim—is wholly without merit, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims so implausible and devoid of merit that they fail to present a federal controversy.

Carr v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 2023-07-27

In light of the lack of this connection, Carr’s claims are so devoid of merit as to be wholly unsubstantial. As a result, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Carr’s claims and dismisses the Complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a wholly insubstantial federal claim does not establish jurisdiction.

ANKH EL v. UNITED STATES · filed 2023-08-03

To exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over a lawsuit, the parties must either be diverse and seeking over $75,000, or the complaint must raise a federal question on its face. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1332. The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint that is wholly insubstantial. ... The Court thus DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Douse v. Traeger · filed 2023-08-29

The district court did not err when it determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Douse’s case because his FHA claims were wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a purported federal claim is wholly insubstantial.

Baker v. Gallo · filed 2024-01-22

Federal courts possess original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Accordingly, plaintiff’s purported LMRDA claim is wholly unsubstantial and does not raise any cognizable federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Sophie Rider v. Jeannie Fuller · filed 2024-04-16

Because Rider’s effort to shoehorn her state law claims into the framework of § 1983 was wholly insubstantial and frivolous, the district court properly concluded that her complaint failed to invoke the district court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over wholly insubstantial federal claims.

WALKER v. JACKSON · filed 2024-08-12

If Walker intended to raise federal claims, they are “wholly insubstantial,” Shapiro v. McManus, 577 U.S. 39, 45-46 (2015), and, therefore, insufficient to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint presents a patently insubstantial federal claim.

Dunbar v. Pelosi · filed 2025-05-28

Although Plaintiff checks the “federal question” box as the basis of jurisdiction, id. at 3, she does not plausibly plead a claim under “the Constitution [or] laws . . . of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and a “complaint may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds when,” as here, it is “ ‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision.’ ” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).

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

Hudson v. Gerson · filed 2025-06-25

This Court first addresses whether plaintiff’s RICO claims are “colorable federal claim[s],” because RICO claims that are “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” are insufficient to provide this Court with subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... For the reasons set forth above, the case presents the kind of “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” claim, Taldone, 2014 WL 1800794, at *5, that does not invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims that are wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Russo v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association · filed 2025-07-22

To the extent Plaintiffs bring federal claims against suable entities (Counts III and IV), those claims are so “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” that they fail to raise a federal question for purposes of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is immaterial or wholly insubstantial.

Pagan v. Ahne · filed 2025-08-08

Even if a plaintiff invokes federal question jurisdiction, if that jurisdiction is premised on an “immaterial” or “wholly insubstantial” federal claim, the case may be dismissed. ... But the Amended Complaint does not state a cognizable claim under any of those statutes.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over wholly insubstantial claims, even when they purport to arise under a federal statute.

SAUNDERS v. RT & RT MANORS LLC, LANDLORD · filed 2025-09-17

However, “wholly insubstantial” claims are insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction, even if they purport to be predicated on a federal statute. ... Accordingly, the Court may not exercise jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims that are wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Michalopoulos · filed 2025-10-14

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations suggesting that he has been tortured and surveilled by the FBI since 2003 are without sufficient factual detail and are otherwise “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” such that the Court does not find a basis to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a wholly insubstantial federal claim.

Dawn Dakisha Jackson v. MKRP LLC · filed 2025-11-12

Furthermore, federal claims like Ms. Jackson’s FDCPA claim that are “wholly insubstantial” are insufficient to “raise a substantial federal question for jurisdictional purposes,” and “[a]bsent a substantial federal question,” a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over wholly insubstantial claims, even when they purport to arise under a federal statute.

JOSEPH · filed 2025-11-14

Moreover, “wholly insubstantial” claims such as those asserted here are insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction, even if they purport to be predicated on a federal statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Morningstar · filed 2025-12-03

This claim is not colorable, but “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” so it may not be used to ground any assertion of federal-question jurisdiction that might be construed from the claim’s inclusion in the Third Amended Complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over wholly insubstantial claims, even when they purport to arise under a federal statute.

THROWER · filed 2025-12-08

However, “wholly insubstantial” claims are insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction, even if they purport to be predicated on a federal statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a wholly insubstantial claim, even if the claim purports to arise under a federal statute.

NEWSON · filed 2025-12-19

However, “wholly insubstantial” claims are insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction, even if they purport to be predicated on a federal statute. ... Accordingly, the Court may not exercise jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims that are wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Giehl v. Ocwen Financial Corporation · filed 2026-05-01

The supposed federal claims in this case are “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” meaning that there is no federal question jurisdiction over them.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims that are wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Ahmed Shaikh v. Fox News Network, LLC · filed 2026-06-04

They had no plausible foundation and were clearly frivolous. There was no federal question jurisdiction for the Court to hear the case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over wholly insubstantial and frivolous claims.

Murphy v. Alabama Mental Health Authority · filed 2026-06-17

We recognize that there is an “exceedingly narrow realm of claims that are ‘wholly insubstantial and frivolous’” such that a dis- trict court lacks federal question jurisdiction over them.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a federal claim unless it is wholly insubstantial and frivolous or was made solely to obtain jurisdiction.

Resnick v. KrunchCash, LLC · filed 2022-05-20

Congress has given the federal courts original jurisdiction over claims that “aris[e] under” federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and Plaintiffs have filed such a claim -- one that does not fall under the exceedingly narrow realm of claims that are “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is so insubstantial or implausible that it does not present a federal controversy.

Robinson v. Robinson · filed 2024-02-21

Here, Plaintiffs federal claim is ... so insubstantial, implausible, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to establish that this court has ... subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to establish paternity.

Scott v. Williams · filed 2023-06-05

Further, because the petition seeks to establish paternity of a female child born on October 28, 2007, no federal question is presented.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction on removal when the asserted federal claims appear only in an amended state-court pleading for which required leave was never granted.

Berry v. St. Louis Public Schools · filed 2023-06-06

Although the state court did not dismiss or otherwise strike Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition, it also did not grant leave for Plaintiff to file the same. Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the amended complaint explicitly asserts federal-law claims.

Salvetti v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2024-12-10

In addition, Plaintiff has explicitly invoked federal law claims in his Amended Complaint, ECF 7-1 at 2-3, so there is no question that this Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 jurisdiction ends when an amended complaint eliminates all federal-law claims, leaving only state-law claims.

Williams v. Georgetown University Alumni & Student Federal Credit Union · filed 2025-06-10

There is no longer a federal question, so the Court no longer has jurisdiction over Williams’s purely state-law case. Remand is the only way forward.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction when an amended complaint eliminates all federal claims and the court declines jurisdiction over the remaining state-law declaratory claim.

Deo v. Baron · filed 2025-12-22

For all of the reasons explained in this Opinion and Order, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1367 or the mirror image doctrine.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the operative amended complaint raises only state-law claims and presents no substantial federal issue.

Dombos · filed 2026-02-27

Plaintiff now only raises state law claims, and no substantial federal issues exist in the Amended Complaint. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not sustain federal-question jurisdiction after an amended complaint deletes all federal claims.

Smith v. Allstate Insurance · filed 2024-05-28

The Court finds two bases for remand. First, the Eighth Circuit recently held that following an amendment deleting all federal claims, the court no longer has a removable federal question and cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over an amended complaint that raises a claim under federal law, including Title VI.

Thomas v. Advance Housing, Inc. · filed 2011-07-29

A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Therefore, the District Court erred in dismissing his motion to amend his complaint to state a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supports federal jurisdiction when a complaint unmistakably asserts federal constitutional claims; a passing constitutional reference in state-law claims does not establish jurisdiction without a substantial, disputed federal issue.

Raeburn v. Gibson · filed 2024-12-19

Raeburn’s and Moore’s second amended complaint raises Fourth and First Amendment claims. It does so unequivocally and unmistakably. (Why it did so, and whether those claims have any life in them, given this Court's earlier rulings, are important questions for another day.) The second amended complaint made the case removable. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 & 1441(a). The earlier pleadings did not.

Section 1331 provides subject matter jurisdiction over a federal claim regardless of whether the plaintiff can ultimately maintain that claim.

Animal Legal Defense Fund v. National Foundation for Rescued Animals d/b/a Tiger Creek Sanctuary · filed 2023-06-07

As an initial matter, Defendants’ reference to “jurisdiction” is odd, as the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, regardless of whether ALDF can maintain a viable ESA claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted § 1983 claim against the removing defendant rests on vicarious liability.

Henderson v. VitalCore Health Strategies, LLC · filed 2023-06-16

Because § 1983 cannot be used as a vehicle to find a party vicariously liable, there is no federal claim brought against VitalCore sufficient to support VitalCore’s removal of this case.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a complaint raises a federal question on its face, even if the federal claim ultimately fails.

Powell v. Yellen · filed 2023-12-28

Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Powell raised a federal question on the face of his Second Amended Complaint. ... Here, the Second Amended Complaint invokes 26 U.S.C. § 6103, so we have jurisdiction even if a proper construction of that statute does not entitle Powell to relief.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a Section 1983 claim even if the complaint fails to adequately allege state action or other elements of the claim.

Smith v. Ebanks · filed 2024-03-22

But the court has federal question jurisdiction over Smith’s claims pursuant to Section 1983, regardless of whether they adequately allege state action and other required elements.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is not defeated by an argument that a federal claim inadequately pleads its elements; that argument concerns the merits.

Dinges v. Wilde · filed 2025-03-21

Whether they have alleged facts sufficient to establish racial animus under § 1982 is a question of whether they have stated a claim, not whether the Court has jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s allegations do not correspond to a federal claim.

Greene v. First to Serve Inc · filed 2025-04-24

While Greene purportedly brings his claims against 430 South under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ECF No. 1 at 4, his allegations do not correspond to any federal claim, and thus the Court does not have jurisdiction over his case based on a federal question.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a pleaded federal claim plausibly presents a federal controversy, even if its elements are challenged.

Talbert · filed 2025-12-16

“The failure to state the elements of a federal claim can form the basis of a Rule 12(b)(1) motion ‘only when the claim is so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.’” Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside Seafood, Inc., 669 F.3d 448, 452 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998)). ... Accordingly, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged an EMTALA claim, and the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims alleging constitutional violations even when the complaint may fail to state a cause of action.

Mark v. Groff · filed 1975-09-02

Regardless of whether appellant’s complaint states a cause of action upon which relief may be granted, ... the district court has subject ... matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to decide whether a complaint founded on the Constitution states a valid federal cause of action, even if the claim fails on the merits.

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics · filed 1969-04-10

But under Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946), it is clear that the district court had jurisdiction under § 1331 to determine whether this complaint, unambiguously founded upon the Fourth Amendment, states a good federal cause of action.

Section 1331 no longer supplies federal-question jurisdiction when the federal claim has been resolved and only a state-law claim remains.

Fleetwood v. Washington State University · filed 2022-06-27

Now that the Court has resolved Plaintiffs’ Title [X claim, the Court no longer has federal ... subject-matter jurisdiction under either basis.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law petition to compel arbitration merely because the underlying claims arise under federal law; the look-through rule is limited to petitions under § 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act.

Anoke v. Twitter, Inc. · filed 2023-06-27

Guided by the Supreme Court’s instruction that Vaden’s “look-through” holding is limited to § 4 petitions, as well as by the principle that removal jurisdiction must be strictly construed in favor of remand, see Harris, 425 F.3d at 698, this Court must grant the motion to remand.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration when the underlying controversy arises under state law.

LEE v. Cook County Health and Hospital Systems · filed 2023-09-12

In their petition, Petitioners attribute this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction to the federal question of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., pursuant to federal jurisdictional statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. ... Here, the action is predicated under Illinois state law, i.e., the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/15(b). Therefore, Petitioners’ claim of subject matter jurisdiction by means of a federal question remains improper.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration under FAA § 4 only when the underlying dispute raises a federal question.

Johnson v. Johnson · filed 2025-10-24

A proceeding under § 4 of the FAA does not raise a federal question simply because it was brought under § 4 of the FAA. Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp., 460 U.S. at 25 n.32. Rather, we must “look through” to the underlying dispute that plaintiffs want to arbitrate and see if the complaint filed in state court raises a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims under 48 U.S.C. §§ 1421b(e), (f), or (n) because those provisions are not laws of the United States for this purpose.

The Law Offices of Phillips and Bordallo, P.C. v. Guerrero · filed 2023-08-09

Since § 1421b(e) only applies on Guam and is concerned with protecting persons against a local government, it is not a law “of the United States.” Petitioner’s claim under § 1421b(e) therefore cannot form the basis for federal question jurisdiction. ... For the same reasons as stated above regarding § 1421b(e), §1421b(f) is not a law “of the United States” and Petitioner’s claim under § 1421b(f) cannot form the basis for federal question jurisdiction. ... As § 1421b(n) does not implicate a fundamental right, is applicable only on Guam, and concerns local policy, it is not a law “of the United States.” Petitioner’s claim under § 1421b(n) therefore cannot form the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law but does not authorize answers to a habeas litigant’s legal questions outside the course of deciding the case.

Finnell v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution · filed 2023-09-05

28 U.S.C. § 1331 gives the United States District Courts original subject matter jurisdiction over cases which make claims that arise under federal law. The statute does not authorize federal courts to answers questions posed by habeas corpus litigants except in the course of deciding those cases.

Section 1331’s federal-question jurisdiction is precluded for VA employment claims governed by the Veterans’ Benefits Act when that Act does not provide judicial review.

Kransky v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs Denis Richar · filed 2023-09-11

Having determined that Plaintiff’s claims fall under § 7463, which does not waive sovereign immunity, Plaintiff must show jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court finds the VBA precludes federal question jurisdiction, and dismissal is proper.

Section 1331(a) does not confer jurisdiction merely because a party is a federally chartered corporation when the United States owns none of its stock and § 1349 therefore limits federal-question jurisdiction.

Hancock Financial Corp. v. Federal Savings & Loan Insurance · filed 1974-02-26(a)

Another asserted ground for jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (federal-question jurisdiction). ... For these reasons and because of the literal wording of 28 U.S.C. § 1349, we hold that jurisdiction is not conferred over the FSLIC merely because it is a federally chartered corporation whose entire stock once was owned by the United States.

Section 1331 does not give FSLIC an independent federal tort action for fraud committed against an insured state-chartered association when FSLIC sues only as assignee or subrogee.

Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. v. Fielding · filed 1969-11-25

The legislative history, the statutory provisions, and the nature of plaintiff’s functional obligations and its administrative purpose all indicate unequivocally that plaintiff has no independent power to sue. It sues, if at all, insofar as injuries to an insured are concerned, only as an assignee or subrogee of its insured. It has no independent right not to be injured by fraud perpetrated upon its insured and therefore it cannot sue in tort under a law of the United States as intended by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A national bank's federal charter does not itself create jurisdiction; Section 1331 requires an independent claim arising under federal law, which purely state-law claims do not supply.

Southern Electric Steel Company v. The First National Bank of Birmingham · filed 1975-07-18

Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1348, which does confer jurisdiction on the federal courts with regard to certain suits involving national banks, clearly was intended to forbid the entertaining of this type of action merely because the bank is federally chartered; to maintain a claim in federal court the plaintiff must plead diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or some other independent jurisdictional base, ... Diversity of citizenship is plainly absent here, and no argument is or could be made that this action “arises under” any federal law, including the National Bank Act. The questions presented are purely ones of state law; the parties rely entirely on state cases and state statutes.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a foreign bank branch when the complaint alleges noncompliance with substantive federal law applicable to national banks; without such an allegation, no federal question exists.

R. W. Sawant & Co. v. Ben Kozloff, Inc. · filed 1981-01-30

If a branch of a foreign bank should fail to comply with a federal law applicable to national banks, then the action would arise under the laws of the United States and jurisdiction would be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Since plaintiff has not alleged that Standard has failed to comply with a substantive federal law applicable to national banks, a federal question is lacking.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a suit against the Export-Import Bank when the Bank is independently liable from its own assets and a judgment would not be paid from the public treasury.

Enterprise Tools, Inc. v. Export-Import Bank of U.S. · filed 1983-06-03

Therefore, the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction over this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that this suit is not one within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims for the reason that if judgment is entered against Eximbank, it would not require satisfaction from the public treasury.

A federal charter alone does not create Section 1331(a) jurisdiction over a corporation when Section 1349 applies and the United States does not own more than half of the corporation.

Burton v. United States Olympic Committee · filed 1983-11-01(a)

Before 1948 all suits by or against any federally chartered corporation were deemed to involve a federal question. In 1948 Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1349 was passed by Congress providing that a federal question is involved only in suits where over one-half of the stock of the federal corporation is owned by the United States. ... Thus, in substance, as well as in form, the United States does not own the USOC and federal question jurisdiction over this suit is lacking under 28 U.S.C. § 1349.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the FDIC acts as an insurer or acquires a loan for value and sues as creditor, but not when the FDIC acts as receiver to collect a state-law debt owed to a state bank.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver of United of America Bank v. Rabbi Mordecai Elefant, Itri Torah Resea · filed 1986-05-16

Section 1819 Fourth provides that any civil suit to which the FDIC is a party “shall be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States ... except that any such suit to which the [FDIC] is a party in its capacity as a receiver of a State bank and which involves only the rights or obligations of depositors, creditors, stockholders, and such State bank under State law shall not be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States.” This statute allocates jurisdiction according to the “capacity” in which the FDIC is a party. Suits in which the FDIC acts as insurer arise under federal law, permitting the use of the federal-question jurisdiction granted by 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Similarly, the suit arises under federal law if the FDIC acquires the loan for value and sues as the creditor. ... But suits in which the FDIC acts as receiver, collecting money owed to the bank according to state law, do not arise under federal law.