28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 provides an independent ground for jurisdiction over a proposed intervenor’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Wonderful Nurseries LLC v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board · filed 2025-05-13

First, the employees’ proposed complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, thereby establishing an independent ground for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when claims based on state institutional regulations do not require interpretation of federal law.

Kephart v. Koenig · filed 2025-05-15

Here, while Plaintiff cites to prison or other state institutional regulations as a basis for jurisdiction, such regulations do not require interpretation of federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law.

Datres v. Winfree · filed 2025-05-20

Because Plaintiff has raised claims that arise under federal law (i.e. 18 U.S.C. § 1595), this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court original subject matter jurisdiction when the complaint raises issues of federal law.

Sibley v. Meridian Wildlife Services, LLC · filed 2025-05-20

Therefore, the Court concludes that it has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the complaint raises issues of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when a complaint identifies no federal law and alleges no facts presenting a federal question.

Clark v. Mastronardi Produce · filed 2025-05-23

First, she does not identify any federal law in which she sues under, and she alleges no facts which present a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a petition to vacate an arbitration award when the petition identifies only state-law grounds for relief.

Floyd v. ELCO Administrative Services Company · filed 2025-05-27

Here, the petition to vacate the arbitration award does not identify any federal question. Federal question jurisdiction exists over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff cites Georgia and California law in his arguments as to why the arbitrator erred (see Dkt. 1 at 3-4), but state law does not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over a case whose amended complaint expressly asserts claims under the U.S. Constitution that may be pursued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

RANDOLPH v. MOORE · filed 2025-05-28

The Court also agrees that Randolph’s Amended Complaint expressly asserts claims under the Constitution of the United States, which may be pursued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, so this Court has original jurisdiction of Randolph’s case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the case is subject to removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over federal constitutional and civil rights questions; whether the complaint states a claim is a separate issue.

Ball v. The City of Eureka Springs, Arkansas · filed 2025-06-02

The questions of whether these Defendants violated the federal Constitution, and of whether a lawsuit is properly brought against them under a federal civil rights statute, are federal questions which this Court has jurisdiction to address under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The sufficiency of Ms. Ball’s pleadings against these Defendants goes not to this Court’s jurisdiction, but rather to whether those pleadings should be dismissed as to these Defendants under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim against them upon which relief may be granted.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, including § 1983 claims, even when the complaint does not expressly invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Pollock v. Berkshire County Jail and House of Correction · filed 2025-06-02

Federal question jurisdiction exists where the complaint includes claims that arise under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although Plaintiff did not specifically invoke federal question jurisdiction, the court construes his claims against the BCHC defendants as brought pursuant to a federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and concludes that federal question jurisdiction exists in this case.

Section 1331 requires a claim based on federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Paul v. Department of Labor · filed 2025-06-04

There are two types of federal subject-matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction, which requires a claim based on a federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity jurisdiction, which requires a lawsuit with a value of greater than $75,000 and in which no defendant is a citizen of the same state as the plaintiff, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff utilizes a complaint for claims brought under a federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but he does not allege that the defendant violated his constitutional rights, nor present any other grounds for relief.

Section 1331 requires facts demonstrating a federal-law claim; merely invoking federal jurisdiction does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Steele v. 1085 Nelson LLC Apts · filed 2025-06-05

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Because Plaintiff does not allege facts demonstrating that the Court has federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction of her claims, the Court dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; an allegation of “discrimination” without a constitutional violation or federal statute does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Alvarez v. Harder Mechanical Contractors · filed 2025-06-06

Plaintiff does not allege any violation arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States upon which relief in this civil action is premised. He alleges only “discrimination” without reference to a constitutional violation or federal statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only state-law claims.

McClellon v. Webull Financial LLC · filed 2025-06-09

Therefore, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents no viable federal claim.

Moore v. DCFS Child and Family Services · filed 2025-06-12

As discussed above, there is no viable federal claim that would support the Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A general citation to § 1331 does not itself establish federal-question jurisdiction over a claim.

Gant v. Standard Consumer · filed 2025-06-12

So neither the Bankruptcy Code nor a general citation to the federal question statute endows the Court with federal jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction through ERISA complete preemption when the plaintiff’s claims rest on independent state-law duties.

County of Riverside v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company · filed 2025-06-13

The existence of these assignments, however, does not change the fact that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not assert a right to relief under the assignments, and instead asserts causes of action premised on the independent legal duties imposed by the Knox-Keene Act and California common law. ... As such, Defendants have not shown that federal question jurisdiction exists.

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

Lane v. Town of Hempstead · filed 2025-06-16

In light of Rotenberg and Marks’ representation, the Complaint in this action does not assert a claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and this Court therefore does not have federal question jurisdiction over the Rotenberg action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A complaint alleging no viable federal cause of action fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Herrmann v. Pointer · filed 2025-06-18

Because Plaintiffs’ complaint does not allege a viable federal cause of action, it fails to establish a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the complaint fails to suggest a federal question.

Kelly v. C&F Mortgage Corporation · filed 2025-06-20

Nothing in appellant’s complaint suggests that this case presents a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; merely citing a treaty without showing that it provides an applicable private right of action does not establish jurisdiction.

Ikner v. J. Scott Resources LLC · filed 2025-06-20

A plaintiff properly invokes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when he or she “pleads a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). ... Plaintiff’s mere citation to the Treaty is insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction, as she fails to demonstrate that a private right of action exists under the Treaty, that she is a member of the tribe that is governed by the Treaty, or that the land on which she resides is subject to the Treaty.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; references to federal statutes that have no apparent relevance to the claim do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Christian v. Doe · filed 2025-06-20

To support federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff references the Trust Indenture Act of 1836, which the Court understands to be the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, and 11 U.S.C. § 105, which is a provision of the federal bankruptcy code, but nothing in Plaintiff’s allegations suggests those statutes have any relevance to the claims that he is seeking to bring.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to show either that federal law creates the claim or that relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial federal question.

Labarrere v. Capital Bank · filed 2025-06-25

The Court dismisses this case for lack of jurisdiction because the Amended Complaint does not establish that federal law creates Plaintiff’s causes of action or that the Plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

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

Tammy Taylor Nails, Inc. v. Viljoen · filed 2025-06-25

As to jurisdiction, federal subject-matter jurisdiction may exist due to the presence of a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, complete diversity between the parties, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... Accordingly, this Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims arising under federal law.

Section 1331 jurisdiction can be invoked by a complaint alleging a federal question even when its factual allegations are scant.

Peters v. Alvarado · filed 2025-06-30

Although the facts in the complaint are scant, the plaintiff has successfully invoked the court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction when a plaintiff’s allegations raise federal questions.

VanHorn v. Salvation Army · filed 2025-07-01

So, the court had subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff’s allegations invoked it. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (conferring subject matter jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”).

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no facts demonstrating a federal law claim.

Sumpter v. Baumgardner · filed 2025-07-02

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires at least one claim under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; citing provisions that provide no private claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Brown v. Saunders · filed 2025-07-09

Federal question jurisdiction exists where at least one of a Plaintiff’s claims is brought pursuant to the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As described above, Plaintiff has neither identified any federal constitutional provision or law that would allow him to bring a private claim, nor has he alleged facts to plausibly state a claim of any sort against the named defendant.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff alleges no federal cause of action.

Rodriguez v. Chavira · filed 2025-07-10

The Court agrees with Defendant and finds that Plaintiff did not allege a federal cause of action that creates federal question jurisdiction in this Court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over state law fraud and conversion claims merely because the disputed funds came from federal benefits.

Hilton v. Penguin Book Writers · filed 2025-07-10

Plaintiff appears to allege that his credit card was wrongfully charged and that the funds taken were “federal” because Plaintiff’s income originates from United States Social Security Administration benefits. Regardless of the source of Plaintiff’s income, Plaintiff has not asserted any claim arising under federal law. Therefore, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 requires a cognizable federal question in the action before the court; a separate federal action does not automatically supply jurisdiction.

Douse v. United States · filed 2025-07-15

Finally, Plaintiff's separate pending action against the United States under the CLJA does not automatically provide the court jurisdiction in this case to hear Plaintiff's allegations concerning a purported data security breach involving the Plaintiff's personal information, which Plaintiff alleges he provided to GMA and the United States when he filed his claim under the CLJA. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and subject-matter jurisdiction for each action must be obtained in one of two ways: (1) by asserting a cognizable “federal question,” such as a violation of a federal statute that provides a private right of action (28 U.S.C. § 1331); or (2) by demonstrating that the parties are diverse and the disputed amount exceeds $75,000.00 (28 U.S.C. § 1332).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when the amended complaint still asserts federal claims.

VAUGHN v. DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC · filed 2025-07-18

Vaughn’s amended complaint asserts a litany of federal claims including a purported violation of the “Civil Rights Act of 1964.” ... Therefore, the court possesses jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction based solely on an ERISA § 514(a) conflict preemption defense.

Kenyon v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co. · filed 2025-07-18

In contrast to complete preemption, however, “conflict preemption under § 514(a) of ERISA[] is an insufficient basis for original federal question jurisdiction under § 1331(a) and removal jurisdiction under § 1441(a).”

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; an unexplained assertion of a “basis of rights” does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Barnes v. Morgan & Morgan · filed 2025-07-18

Aside from writing “basis of rights,” Plaintiff does not refer to any federal law under which his claims arise. The Court therefore lacks federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a claim alleging an IGRA violation even if IGRA provides no statutory right of action.

Manzini v. Cypress · filed 2025-07-23

Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction by way of federal question under IGRA. Any questions as to the existence of a statutory right of action are subsequently analyzed as a matter of pleading sufficiency.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint mentions a federal statute only to disclaim that the pleading is an initial communication under it.

U.S. Bank National Association v. SIZA Investment Group, Inc · filed 2025-07-23

This statement, however, is not a claim under the FDCPA. It is simply a disclaimer that the Complaint does not constitute an initial communication under the FDCPA. Based on the Court’s review of the Complaint, the Court does not see any claims under the FDCPA or any claims raising a federal question.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal statute provides no private cause of action and the remaining claims arise under state law.

Firsov v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc. · filed 2025-07-23

Section 1073 does not provide a valid private cause of action, and therefore, Plaintiffs did not plausibly allege a Dodd-Frank Act violation. Plaintiffs’ remaining claims all allege state law claims, not federal claims. Thus, their FAC, as currently plead, is insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over stand-alone state-law negligence or personal-injury claims.

Abdallah v. McDonalds Manager · filed 2025-07-28

These allegations sound in negligence or personal injury, which are state-law claims, not federal claims. Judge Dries was correct that this federal court cannot exercise jurisdiction over stand-alone state-law claims.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction when a claim arises under federal law or a state law claim necessarily raises a qualifying federal issue.

Adekson v. HH Marble Property, LLC · filed 2025-07-28

Federal question jurisdiction exists when a plaintiff brings at least one of her claims pursuant to the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The Complaint makes no reference to the Constitution or to any federal laws or treaties and her state law claims do not appear to involve any federal questions as necessary elements. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not established federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the only asserted federal claim fails to plausibly allege action under color of state law.

Mira v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas · filed 2025-07-28

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts that the Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Doc. 1 at 1). However, Plaintiff’s only claim that could give rise to federal question jurisdiction is Count IV of the Complaint, which alleges a violation of Plaintiff’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. ... Construing this as a claim for a violation of Plaintiff’s procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff’s claim fails to state a claim for relief because she has not plausibly alleged that Defendants were acting under color of state law. ... As such, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Plaintiff will not be given leave to amend.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when a complaint plausibly alleges a federal cause of action or a right to relief that necessarily depends on a substantial federal question.

Dixon v. McCoy · filed 2025-07-28

Federal question jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when a complaint plausibly alleges “either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 27–28 (1983).

Section 1331 covers all civil actions within the jurisdiction granted by Section 1343(a).

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR v. DANT · filed 2025-07-29

The general federal-question jurisdiction statute also covers all the ground covered by Section 1343(a).

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction that state law cannot take away.

Mignott v. State Bar of Georgia Foundation, Inc. · filed 2025-07-30

State law cannot strip a federal court of jurisdiction that federal law otherwise provides.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the cited federal statutes are unrelated to the claims or provide no private cause of action.

Rahaman v. Progressive Insurance Company · filed 2025-07-30

Absent diversity jurisdiction, the only way Rahaman may proceed in federal court is if there is federal-question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. But none of Rahaman’s claims implicate a federal question. As explained below, although Rahaman cites federal statutes for almost all her claims, the statutes she cites are either wholly unrelated to her actual claim or do not provide for a private cause of action, and thus do not confer jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to contain allegations sufficient to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Melara · filed 2025-07-31

Plaintiff’s Complaint is insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over an action pleading an FLSA claim.

ORTEZ v. BETA ELECTRIC ELP, LLC · filed 2025-07-31

Here, one of the causes of action pled in the Amended Complaint is based on the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., thus the Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims involving federal law or the Constitution; the court held that it lacked jurisdiction when the complaint failed to state its sole federal claim.

Green v. Aldi Inc · filed 2025-07-31

They also have the authority to consider and decide cases that involve violations of federal laws or the federal Constitution—this is called “federal question” jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1331. ... This means that if the complaint does not state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, the court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss this case. ... The court must dismiss this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plausible basis for concluding that a claim arises under federal law or the Constitution.

Colbert v. Wright · filed 2025-07-31

Here, there is neither federal-question jurisdiction nor diversity jurisdiction over Colbert’s claims, so they must be dismissed. To start, nothing in the complaint plausibly suggests that Colbert’s claims for “tort,” “slander,” or “sexual assault” arise under any federal law or constitutional provision.

Section 1331 requires a basis in federal law for federal-question jurisdiction; a complaint that fails to show such a basis does not establish jurisdiction.

ANSAH v. JORDAN · filed 2025-08-11

Federal question jurisdiction is proper when an action “arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Nor has she averred facts that would establish any other basis for finding a violation of federal law. Thus, the complaint fails to make a sufficient showing that a basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 requires at least one claim brought under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties for federal-question jurisdiction.

Malone v. United States Marshals Service · filed 2025-08-13

Federal question jurisdiction exists where at least one of a plaintiff’s claims is brought pursuant to the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff has only cited diversity jurisdiction in her Complaint. ECF 1 at 4. She has not identified any federal constitutional provision or law that would allow her to bring a private civil claim in federal court against the United States Marshals for the damages she seeks.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a facially viable federal statutory claim, but not over a claim based on state law.

Lien v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC · filed 2025-08-19

Lien asserted a facially viable claim under a federal statute, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. FAC (dkt. 28) ¶¶ 51–61; 15 U.S.C. § 2310. Federal question jurisdiction is therefore proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... This claim is based on a California state statute, Cal. Com. Code § 2313, so federal question jurisdiction does not apply.

Section 1331 requires a federal question arising from the plaintiff’s claim to support federal question jurisdiction.

Luckert v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 2025-08-19

Neither give rise to a private cause of action or a federal question that would support the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is not established when a complaint identifies no federal statute or constitutional right and leaves the alleged conduct too unclear to reveal a jurisdictional basis.

Holloway v. Judge Schaltz · filed 2025-08-25

As pleaded, there is no indication that Plaintiff’s claims support federal question jurisdiction as not only does Plaintiff not cite to any federal statute or constitutional right, but it is unclear what Plaintiff claims was done to him or by whom rendering it impossible to determine how jurisdiction might be obtained.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff identifies no basis for a federal question.

Bulock v. Riesen · filed 2025-08-26

Plaintiff fails to identify any basis for the invocation of federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no facts suggesting a claim arising under federal law.

Endeley v. New York University · filed 2025-08-26

Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and even were the Court to construe the complaint as asserting such a claim, he provides no facts suggesting a claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim has no private right of action and the remaining claims arise under state law.

Aoun v. Sayed · filed 2025-08-27

First, the Court finds that the parties accurately state that HIPAA does not confer a private right of action, so the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s complaint as all the other asserted claims remain rooted in Michigan law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint identifies only fraud and defamation as its jurisdictional basis.

James v. American Public University Systems · filed 2025-08-28

In addition, the complaint’s stated basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, “Other fraud – Fabricating documents to commit defamation,” does not amount to federal question or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.

Section 1331 gives district courts original federal-question jurisdiction over claims under the Constitution or federal statutes.

SMITH v. WEBSTER · filed 2025-08-29

This case plainly falls within this Court’s original “federal question” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 because it asserts claims under the Constitution and federal statutes.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction only when a claim, liberally construed, arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Short v. ZBS Law LLP · filed 2025-09-03

Neither is there jurisdiction under 28 U.S. Code § 1331 because, even when liberally construed, none of Short’s claims arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of constitutional rights or federal law.

McCarter v. State of Nevada · filed 2025-09-05

However, the Court does have federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims because Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of his Constitutional rights and violations of federal law.

Section 1331 grants jurisdiction over cases involving federal law; asserted federal claims that do not establish a basis for jurisdiction do not suffice.

Scott v. City of Baltimore · filed 2025-09-09

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil cases, with some exceptions that are not relevant here, in only two instances: (1) under federal question jurisdiction, where the case involves an issue of federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or (2) under diversity jurisdiction, where the parties in the case are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Ms. Scott contends that this Court has federal question under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. ... For these reasons, Plaintiff has not established that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over her claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when claims arise under federal law.

Taylor v. Brook Valley · filed 2025-09-10

Taylor’s claims, at least in part, thus clearly arise out of the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a party lists federal claims that have no connection to the allegations in the pleading.

Desty v. National Vehicle Recovery of Georgia, Inc. · filed 2025-09-15

But he cannot bolster his contention that this Court has jurisdiction by listing potential federal claims bearing no connection to the allegations in his pleading.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Lane v. Lane Sanders · filed 2025-09-16

In her complaint, Lane checked the box to indicate federal question as the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Doc. No. 1 at ¶ II (basis for jurisdiction). She does not, refer to any specific federal law and the Court does not discern a claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 requires facts suggesting a federal law claim; merely invoking federal question jurisdiction is insufficient.

Sanchez-Garcia · filed 2025-09-16

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... The Court therefore lacks federal question jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the remaining claims allege no federal cause of action and merely cite federal patient-care standards.

Jackson v. Renew Health Consulting Services, LLC · filed 2025-09-18

First, no federal question jurisdiction remains in the case. Plaintiff alleges no federal cause of action.

Section 1331 requires an action to involve a federal question for federal-question jurisdiction to exist.

Erikson v. Wiseman Family Trust · filed 2025-09-19

Because this action does not involve any federal question, and because there is not complete diversity between the parties, the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 11, is GRANTED.

Section 1331 requires a claim under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Mays v. Lewis and Clark Community College · filed 2025-09-22

As such, to proceed in federal court, Mays must establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, which is ordinarily accomplished through federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Mays’ Complaint does not state a claim under federal laws, nor has he alleged diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal law governing the alleged conduct.

Matin v. Verizon Board of Directors Repairs GGVenkatesh · filed 2025-09-22

However, the complaint does not assert any valid basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over this claim, as Plaintiff has neither presented a federal question nor asserted diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not cite any federal law requiring a private company to provide him with interference-free telephone service or to protect his alleged “right to privacy.”

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction can be expressly precluded by another statute even if that statute does not name § 1331.

Moats v. Natl Crdt Un Admin Bd · filed 2025-09-23

Moats submits that Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc., 529 U.S. 1 (2000), requires a statute to reference § 1331 or another jurisdictional statute, to explicitly preclude district court jurisdiction. We disagree. ... We refuse to hold that Shalala requires Congress use magic words to preclude jurisdiction, because such a holding is unsupported by Shalala’s context and analysis. Shalala is no bar to our holding that § 1786(k)(1) explicitly precludes district court jurisdiction in this circumstance.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, but does not itself create a cause of action.

Malott v. American Foods Group LLC · filed 2025-09-23

Those statutes describe the circumstances where a federal court can hear a case, but they do not create a cause of action. Malott does not identify—and the defendants and the court are not aware of—any federal law under which an intentional tort based on radiofrequency can be brought against an employer or former employer.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over FLSA claims because they arise under federal law, regardless of whether the plaintiff proves the defendants are covered by the FLSA.

Perez v. Escobar Construction · filed 2025-09-25

FLSA claims arise under the laws of the United States because the FLSA is a federal statute, so 28 U.S.C. section 1331 provides the Court subject matter jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims. ... Indeed, the Court’s federal question subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold question based on the nature of the claims themselves that precedes, and therefore cannot depend on, the resolution of their merits. Defendants’ motion is denied insofar as it seeks dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over fraud or money-laundering allegations when the plaintiff identifies no statutory basis for a private right of action against the defendants.

Boone v. McClain · filed 2025-10-01

Plaintiff offers no statutory basis for pursuing a private right of action in federal court against either defendant Meta or defendant Ashely McClain for allegations of fraud or money laundering, as is required for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction when a complaint identifies no federal statute under which a federal question arises.

Boone v. Subway · filed 2025-10-01

In his brief complaint, plaintiff does not invoke any federal statute under which a federal question arises. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a claim arising under federal law; merely invoking federal-question jurisdiction is insufficient.

Carr · filed 2025-10-01

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Wayne v. McKnight · filed 2025-10-24

First, he has failed to state a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff does not invoke any authority that provides a federal cause of action, nor can the court independently discern any basis for federal question jurisdiction from the facts given in the complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on the Virginia Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

Taylor · filed 2025-10-24

However, the basis for federal question jurisdiction provided by Plaintiff—the Virginia Constitution and Declaration of Independence—are not a proper basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim.

Robert Williams, Jr. v. Capital City Motors · filed 2025-10-24

Capital City’s motion implicates two jurisdiction-granting statutes—28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of citizenship) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question). ... In sum, federal-question jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims whose causes of action are created by federal law.

Cross · filed 2025-10-24

Because federal law creates the causes of action asserted, the Court had original jurisdiction over these claims at the time of removal.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no facts stating a claim under federal law.

Norman · filed 2025-10-27

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” often referred to as federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to state a claim under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based on a defensive preemption argument when the claims are not completely preempted.

Mellon · filed 2025-10-27

Plaintiffs allege only state law claims, none of which are subject to “complete preemption.” (ECF No. 1-2.) Regardless of any alleged defenses, this Court does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for any claim in this case.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

McClure · filed 2025-10-30

As such, Counts 1, 2, and 3 arise under federal law sufficient for the Court to lawfully exercise jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based solely on a federal criminal statute that gives private litigants no civil cause of action.

Drennan · filed 2025-10-31

Therefore, taken alone, 18 U.S.C. § 242 cannot form the basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

SCHUMACHER · filed 2025-11-03

The Amended Complaint contains similar allegations under the TCPA (see generally Am. Compl.), therefore giving the Court subject matter jurisdiction over the claims raised in the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when the operative complaint asserts a federal statutory claim, even if the plaintiff proposed but did not file an amendment removing that claim before removal.

Alexander · filed 2025-11-04

Therefore, removal was proper on the basis ... of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction, which is absent when the petition asserts no federal cause of action.

Titus · filed 2025-11-05

United States district courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over two types of cases: those in which a federal question cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and those in which diversity of citizenship exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... Review of the Original Petition and Clark’s Response to the Show Cause Order reveal Clark is a citizen of Tex- as, and no federal cause of action is asserted in this case.

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

Marvin · filed 2025-11-10

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under these statutes, a federal district court has jurisdiction only when a “federal question” is presented or when plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. Nothing in the notice of removal suggests that this action involves claims arising under federal law or that the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises claims under the Constitution.

Benjamin · filed 2025-11-12

Upon review, Court agrees that removal is proper in this matter. Plaintiff’s complaint clearly centers around alleged violations of his constitutional rights.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal law applicable to the alleged injury.

Malott · filed 2025-11-13

While Plaintiff asserts that he is suing for a violation of federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ECF No. 1 at 4, he references no federal law that applies to his injuries, see generally id. The Court is not independently aware of any federal law or Constitutional right that allows an individual to sue someone for directing radio frequency at them.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff identifies no federal law that applies to the alleged injuries.

Malott · filed 2025-11-13

While Plaintiff asserts that he is suing for a violation of federal employment discrimination law, ECF No. 1 at 1, he references no federal law that applies to his injuries, see generally id., and thus does not indicate a basis for jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; a complaint that identifies no federal cause of action or other basis for federal-question jurisdiction does not establish it.

Wayne v. Two Male Suspects · filed 2025-11-13

Plaintiff does not invoke any authority that provides a federal cause of action, nor can the court independently discern any basis for federal question jurisdiction from the facts given in the Complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint offers only vague references to constitutional rights and identifies no supporting federal law.

Garrett · filed 2025-11-17

Thus, Garrett’s complaint does not provide this Court federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a negligence complaint that alleges no violation of the Constitution or federal law.

Soto · filed 2025-11-24

These allegations do not establish federal question jurisdiction as there are no alleged violation of the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no federal cause of action.

Franklin · filed 2025-11-25

Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and the allegations in the complaint do not suggest any federal causes of action.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over this complaint seeking dismissal of a state criminal case for lack of probable cause.

Hamilton · filed 2025-11-26

Magistrate Judge Duffin noted that the Court lacks jurisdiction in this matter under either diversity or federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 5–6 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332). ... That being the case, and seeing no independent reason to depart from the R&R, the Court will adopt Magistrate Judge Duffin’s recommendation and order that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the claims involve no federal cause of action and require no resolution of a substantial federal question.

Brennen · filed 2025-11-26

Plaintiff’s allegations against their private landlord do not appear to involve a federal law or cause of action or require resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Thus, inasmuch as Plaintiffs invoke the court’s federal question jurisdiction, the Court dismisses their claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 ordinarily gives federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over § 1983 claims, but that jurisdiction does not establish venue or show that a complaint states a claim.

Chan v. Re/Max · filed 2025-12-02

And though Chan is correct that federal courts ordinarily have subject-matter jurisdiction over 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, subject-matter jurisdiction is not the same as venue, Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 316 (2006); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (3). Nor is it the same as stating a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting Title VII violations.

Taylor · filed 2025-12-04

Upon review, the requirements for federal question jurisdiction in this matter are satisfied.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction for civil actions arising under federal law; a complaint that alleges no federal-law claim does not establish that jurisdiction.

Norman · filed 2025-12-04

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” often referred to as federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to state a claim under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no basis in federal law.

Lucero · filed 2025-12-04

He concluded that the Court did not have federal question jurisdiction as Lucero alleged no basis in federal law for his Complaint. ... The Court agrees with Judge Lane’s conclusions.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no plausible federal claim.

Gioia v. Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler · filed 2024-04-19

The removed action does not allege a federal question such that this Court’s federal question subject matter jurisdiction could properly be invoked.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when none of the complaint’s claims is federal.

Boumakh · filed 2025-12-08

Moreover, Judge Beeler correctly determined that Boumakh’s amended complaint fails to show this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over his claims against YouTube. R&R at 2. None of the claims is federal. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a federal statute creates the cause of action and supplies the substantive rule of decision.

Poulsen v. Poulsen · filed 2025-12-09

Under § 1331, federal-question jurisdiction exists where a federal statute creates the cause of action and furnishes the substantive rule of decision.

Section 1331 requires a cognizable federal question; broad citations to federal laws without supporting allegations do not establish jurisdiction.

Williams v. Medstar Health Inc. · filed 2025-12-11

First, plaintiff has broadly cited to federal laws, but has failed to state a cognizable federal question, and the Court does not independently discern any basis for federal question jurisdiction from any of the allegations presented.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when federal law creates the claim or a federal issue lies at the heart of a state-law claim; it cannot supply jurisdiction for an injunction without a viable cause of action.

Turboven Company v. Smith · filed 2025-12-11

The federal question statute likewise cannot fill Turboven’s jurisdictional hole. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when “federal law creates the cause of action asserted” or when a federal issue lies at the heart of a state-law claim. ... Without a viable mandamus claim or any other cause of action, “the federal question statute alone [cannot] serve as the source of federal jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts a Fair Credit Billing Act claim.

Scotland · filed 2025-12-11

While Plaintiff argues that “[a]ny federal issues” in his complaint are merely “incidental” to his state law claims (ECF 2 at 1), Plaintiff’s complaint is based on a claim under federal law—the FCBA—over which this Court has federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a purported § 1983 claim against a private party when conclusory conspiracy allegations fail to establish action under color of state law.

Nunnally · filed 2025-12-12

Nunnally’s bare bones allegations of a conspiracy is simply not enough for this Court to determine that Defendant was acting under color of state law such that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under §§ 1331 and 1343.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for claims brought solely under 28 U.S.C. § 1655 or the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Mall v. Adrienne Marie Waibel, et al. · filed 2025-12-17

Plaintiff sets forth a claim for “quiet title” under 28 U.S.C. § 1655, and “declaratory judgment” under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02. (Compl. at 4–5.) Neither of those statutes establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts showing a violation of federal law or the Constitution to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Malott · filed 2025-12-18

Because he has not plead facts that show a violation of a federal provision, the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 grants jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution or federal law, and an amendment reasserting such claims can cure a jurisdictional defect.

Caffarello · filed 2025-12-19

It also asserted federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, granting federal courts jurisdiction to hear cases arising under the Constitution and federal law. While a subsequently filed complaint supersedes prior complaints in all respects, that Plaintiff’s first complaint asserted federal question jurisdiction along with specific federal claims shows that an amendment can cure the jurisdictional defect. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be provided leave to file a Third Amended Complaint that reasserts federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to immigration detention that do not challenge a removal decision.

Andrews · filed 2025-12-19

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” As such, the Court has jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s constitutional claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the only federal claim has been dismissed.

Richardson-Henderson · filed 2025-12-22

The federal district court has jurisdiction over a case in one of three ways: federal question (28 U.S.C. § 1331), diversity (28 U.S.C. § 1332), and supplemental (28 U.S.C. § 1367). Given that the Court has dismissed the RICO claim and there are no remaining claims arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treatises, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; rude and disrespectful treatment alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Boparai · filed 2025-12-22

This is unfortunate but does not, in and of itself, support a claim arising under federal law. ... And without this, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or the right to relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

Langlois · filed 2025-12-23

Plaintiff has failed to plead a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For a court to exercise federal question jurisdiction, a complaint must establish “that federal law creates the cause of action or that plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27–28 (1983). Plaintiff’s complaint asserts claims of forgery and theft against Michels, but his complaint does not state a claim that arises under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because federal law may supply a defense; ordinary conflict preemption is insufficient.

Garza-Castro · filed 2025-12-23

Thus, the preemption Blue Marlin invokes is ordinary, conflict preemption, which may be a defense to Garza-Castro’s negligent selection claim but which is not a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving the Constitution, a federal law, or a treaty; a complaint alleging no federal claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Johnson · filed 2025-12-30

A “federal question” case involves the Constitution or a federal law or treaty. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege any federal claims, and there is no diversity of citizenship because both Plaintiff and Defendant reside in Oregon.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal cause of action.

Richmond v. City of Milwaukee · filed 2025-12-30

He fails to identify any federal cause of action giving this Court federal question jurisdiction over his case.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint to present a federal cause of action or a substantial question of federal law; state-law claims alone do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Jones · filed 2025-12-30

For a court to exercise federal question jurisdiction, a well-pleaded complaint must establish “that federal law creates the cause of action or that plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27–28 (1983). ... Plaintiff’s remaining claims for negligence, breach of contract, and violations of Wisconsin law are based in state law and are insufficient to establish jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide continuing federal-question jurisdiction when the amended complaint asserts no claim arising under federal law.

People of California ex rel. Bonta v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2025-12-31

Having read and considered the parties’ Joint Stipulation to Remand this Case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court (Docket No. 15), which sets forth the parties’ agreement that the First Amended Complaint does not assert any claims that arise under the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” for purposes of federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that there is no other basis for continuing federal jurisdiction in this case, and having read and considered the First Amended Complaint, which does not give rise to continuing federal court jurisdiction under Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 25-26, 39 (2025), the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 1. This action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, where it is docketed as The People of the State of California ex rel. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of the State of California v. County of Los Angeles et al., Case No. 25STCV26152; 2. All deadlines, hearings, and other dates in this matter are VACATED, and the Clerk of the Court shall close the matter, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with this federal proceeding.

Section 1331 requires a viable claim arising under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Hunter v. Dave Billion, Auto · filed 2024-04-25

Because federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable, the court must determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over civil cases arising under federal law; a complaint with no discernible federal claim does not establish that jurisdiction.

Jones · filed 2026-01-05

Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction in civil cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff cites no federal laws or constitutional principles in his complaint and, even if the Court reads his allegations generously, it cannot discern a federal claim.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over an ADEA claim, allowing its removal from state court.

Thweatt · filed 2026-01-08

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff brings a claim for age discrimination under the ADEA, and removal of the complaint was proper.

Section 1331 provides federal jurisdiction over claims invoking Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, or the Due Process Clause.

George v. Groome Transportation · filed 2026-01-09

George’s complaint invoked several provisions of federal law—42 U.S.C. § 2000e (also known as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Due Process Clause—any of which provides a basis for federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to establish a federal question before a court may exercise federal-question jurisdiction.

Mahler · filed 2026-01-13

And, as explained above, Plaintiff has also not sufficiently alleged a basis for this Court to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims involving federal law or the Constitution; allegations that identify no such violation do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Zaal · filed 2026-01-13

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. ... Because the plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a federal law or constitutional provision and has not alleged sufficient facts to establish diversity jurisdiction, this federal court does not have jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims that she was fired for no reason or that she was terminated from her medical provider’s practice.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over an actual controversy concerning an alien’s right under federal law to be considered for suspension of deportation.

McGrath v. Kristensen · filed 1950-12-11

This is an actual controversy between the alien and immigration officials over the legal right of the alien to be considered for suspension. As such a controversy over federal laws, it is within the jurisdiction of federal courts, 28 U. S. C. § 1331, and the terms of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2201.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint sufficiently alleges a deprivation of property without due process, even if the pleading is inartfully drawn.

D. J. Miller v. County of Los Angeles, a Political Subdivision of the State of California · filed 1965-04-22

While the complaint, drawn by one obviously unlettered in the law and unskilled in the niceties of proper pleading, leaves much to be desired, nevertheless, we believe under the authority of the Lowe case that the allegations are sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a claim under federal law.

GORDON · filed 2026-01-16

In his complaint, Gordon alleged that the defendants were liable under Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, a federal law. ECF 1 at 2. Thus, the Court had federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction for claims involving the Constitution, a federal law, or a treaty; claims that involve none of these do not qualify.

Thrasher · filed 2026-01-20

A “federal question” case involves the Constitution, a federal law, or a treaty. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, Plaintiffs do not bring claims involving a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s conclusory allegations fail to state a sufficient federal claim.

Thompson · filed 2026-01-20

Moreover, because Plaintiff cannot make out a claim sufficient to grant this Court jurisdiction over the matter under 28 U.S.C. 1331, dismissal is also warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint uses a § 1983 form; the complaint must plausibly implicate a federal claim.

Barron · filed 2026-01-28

Given that Barron’s Complaint, despite the heading on the form, does not plausibly implicate any constitutional claim, the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction cannot be based upon § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff’s references to federal law do not create a federal cause of action or make the requested relief depend on a substantial federal question.

Klein · filed 2026-01-27

For those reasons, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; a property dispute with no alleged federal basis does not qualify.

Bodnar · filed 2026-02-03

For this court to have federal question jurisdiction over this action, Bodnar must allege a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Bodnar has not identified any constitutional provision or federal statute as a basis for his claim.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the U.S. Constitution.

Wideman v. Hawaii Paroling Authority · filed 2026-02-05

The District Court had jurisdiction to decide the claims in the April 15, 2020 Complaint, which alleged that Wideman's 2012 arrest and parole revocation deprived him of his rights under the United States and Hawai i Constitutions and that media companies, including Nexstar, broadcasted allegedly defamatory information about him. Federal law, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367(a), grants United States District Courts original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution and supplemental jurisdiction over related claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when neither complete preemption nor a necessarily raised substantial federal question overcomes the well-pleaded complaint rule.

City of Lee’s Summit, Missouri v. Jackson County · filed 2026-02-11

In this case, the well-pleaded complaint rule controls. The Court accordingly lacks original federal question subject-matter jurisdiction and remand to state court is required.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint states a cause of action arising under federal law; identifying no supporting federal statute fails to establish it.

Felton · filed 2026-02-12

First, Plaintiff does not identify any statute that could support federal question jurisdiction.

An amended complaint that eliminates the federal question after removal ends § 1331 jurisdiction and requires remand when no diversity jurisdiction is asserted.

MCCLURE · filed 2026-02-13

THE COURT FURTHER NOTING that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint no longer raises a federal question. ... ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; a conclusory constitutional allegation unsupported by facts does not establish that jurisdiction.

Abdullah v. United States of America · filed 2026-02-19

In general, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” and over civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the action is between “citizens of different States.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1). Although Plaintiff makes the conclusory allegation that Defendants’ conduct violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, Plaintiff alleges no facts in support of this claim. ... The Court will dismiss the Complaint and this action for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint merely alludes to violations of federal law without allegations supporting that jurisdiction.

Stone v. Bedford Stuyvesant Family Health Center · filed 2026-02-19

Plaintiff's complaint attempts to invoke this Court's jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 by alluding to violations of federal law. Construing Plaintiff’s allegations to “raise the strongest arguments they suggest,” McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Bertin v. United States, 478 F.3d 489, 491 (2d Cir. 2007)), the complaint does not suggest any basis for the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction, whether federal question or otherwise.

The party invoking federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 must establish a basis for it.

Venglar v. Jarmillio · filed 2026-02-26

She has failed to show any basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction regarding her complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006).

Section 1331 requires factual allegations supporting a violation of federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Winters · filed 2026-02-26

As such, there are no factual allegations in the complaint that support a violation of federal law to give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts only state-law claims and the proposed federal claims have no private right of action.

Gencarelli · filed 2026-02-27

Lastly, Plaintiff attempts to salvage this action by asserting in his response memorandum of law that the Second Amended Complaint also raises “substantial issues under federal law” that alternatively provide jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... However, Plaintiff has not asserted claims pursuant to either of these statutes in the Second Amended Complaint and indeed never mentions any violation of federal law, asserting only various state law claims. ... As Defendants correctly argue in their memoranda, neither of those statutes provide a private right of action, and thus neither of those claims would cure the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents no federal question.

Keck · filed 2026-03-02

Additionally, upon review of Plaintiff's Verified Complaint, no federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim seeking to hold a defendant liable for an FCRA violation.

Brown · filed 2026-03-05

First, the notice of removal as well as Plaintiff’s pleadings provide two sound bases for removal: (1) diversity jurisdiction because the parties are citizens of different states and Plaintiff seeks $810,000, well over the $75,000 requirements; and (2) a substantial federal question exists because Plaintiff is seeking to hold Defendant liable for a FCRA violation.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law quiet-title claim when the plaintiff alleges no facts supporting a federal question.

Sloniker v. Educators Credit Union · filed 2026-03-05

Here, plaintiff seeks to quiet title to a piece of real property that was already the subject of a foreclosure action, which is a state-law matter, not a federal one. ... Plaintiff does not otherwise articulate facts in support of an exercise of federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction merely because a petition seeks expungement from FINRA databases under an SEC-approved FINRA rule.

Wells · filed 2026-03-09

In addition, Wells’s claim that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction because he seeks expungement of records that FINRA publishes in FINRA-maintained databases (i.e., CRD and BrokerCheck) under FINRA rules reviewed and approved by the SEC fails.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is not established when there is no operative complaint before the court.

Christian · filed 2026-03-10

This Court has jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. But because there is currently no operative complaint in this suit, jurisdiction has not been established.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that relies exclusively on state law, even when the removing defendant asserts that it raises a federal claim.

U.S. Bank Trust National Association v. 2105 NW 1 LLC · filed 2026-03-18

Instead, Plaintiff relies exclusively on Florida law when alleging the Complaint’s grounds for relief in what is essentially a mortgage foreclosure action. ... He has not done so as to federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.