28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction when a cause of action arises under federal law.

"Jenny" · filed 2026-03-19

Plaintiffs’ sole cause of action in this matter arises out of federal law, see § 2255(a), so the Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A party invoking § 1331 must establish federal-question jurisdiction when a statutory review scheme is asserted to preclude district-court review.

Meharry Medical College v. National Labor Relations Board · filed 2026-03-26

The Court finds that Plaintiff wholly fails to carry its burden of proving that district courts possess federal-question jurisdiction to hear Seventh Amendment challenges (like Plaintiff’s) to NLRB proceedings.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to decide whether a nonfrivolous federal mandamus claim meets the requirements for relief.

TAKLIT · filed 2026-03-30

As Plaintiffs seek to compel an officer or employee of the United States to perform a duty they allege is owed to them pursuant to a statute "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction to consider whether the prerequisites for mandamus relief have been satisfied.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when no federal law creates an asserted cause of action and no claim necessarily depends on resolving a substantial federal question.

Omozee · filed 2026-03-30

In sum, Plaintiff fails to identify any federal law that creates any cause of action asserted in the Complaint and fails to state any plausible claim for relief that necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Accordingly, this Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the Complaint, and, therefore, the Complaint must be dismissed.

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

Black v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC · filed 2026-03-31

Plaintiff’s FDCPA claims arise under federal law. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. In addition, Plaintiff has conceded that the cases were removable. Therefore, the Court has original jurisdiction over all three cases. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction to address claims in a civil action arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Namin v. Vert · filed 2026-04-07

To the extent Namin challenges the jurisdiction of the district court to dismiss his Amended Complaint, we find his argument unavailing. He brought a “civil action[] arising under the Constitution [and] laws” of the United States, and so the district court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction to address his claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the substance of a complaint is a state-law dispute supported only by conclusory allegations of a federal rights violation.

Holston · filed 2026-04-07

Allegations regarding these state statutes along with conclusory statements about deprivation of due process without supporting facts or citation to specific legal precedent does not establish federal question jurisdiction under Rule 8.

Section 1331 requires more than merely citing federal statutes to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Smith v. Super Ego Holdings · filed 2026-04-10

But merely citing federal statutes does not establish jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction based on complete preemption, but conflict preemption does not confer jurisdiction.

Wisconsinites for Alternatives to Smoking v. Casey · filed 2026-04-21

Field, or complete, preemption does confer federal question jurisdiction, but conflict preemption “is merely a de- fense to the merits of a claim,” and thus does not confer juris- diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when a removed proceeding presents no basis for original federal jurisdiction.

State of South Carolina v. Jackson · filed 2026-04-21

Further, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, the action is premised on a frivolous legal theory, and the action is barred by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971). ... Having done so, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or resolving a state law claim involves a substantial federal issue.

Gunter · filed 2026-04-23

Federal jurisdiction lies where the complaint presents a federal question, which arises in two main ways: (1) if federal law creates the plaintiff’s cause or action or (2) state law creates the cause of action, but resolving the state claim involves a substantial federal issue.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law; allegations that state no federal claim do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Mays · filed 2026-04-27

These allegations are not sufficient to state a claim under any of the federal laws that Plaintiff has cited. In addition, they fail to state a claim under any federal employment statute. As such, Plaintiff has not stated a claim within the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the federal criminal statutes invoked provide no private right of action.

Parker · filed 2026-05-05

As a result, Parker’s complaint lacks a federal question that confers the Court with subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction over a sufficiently alleged RICO claim even when the claim’s merits remain to be decided.

Brommer · filed 2026-05-15

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have jurisdiction over cases arising out of federal law, including federal statutes and the United States Constitution. ... Accepting Mr. Brommer’s allegations as true, the Court finds he has pled sufficient allegations to invoke subject matter jurisdiction over his RICO claims. While the question whether his claims survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) will be addressed below, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is not appropriate.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an eviction proceeding governed by state law.

Thong · filed 2026-05-19

There is no federal question jurisdiction because this proceeding also does not “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

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

Hinkes v. Reddy · filed 2026-05-22

But Hinkes’s suit arises under federal law and so comes within §1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Sun v. Notice · filed 2026-05-22

The Court agrees that it possesses subject matter jurisdiction over Sun’s complaint due to this being a “civil action[] arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

State law assigning exclusive jurisdiction to a state agency cannot divest a federal court of jurisdiction under § 1331 over a federal claim.

Norris · filed 2026-06-08

This Court’s jurisdiction over plaintiff’s clams arises from federal law, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. “State law cannot strip a federal court of jurisdiction that federal law otherwise provides.” ... Magnolia’s arguments therefore fail.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint pleads no facts showing a federal question.

Hope · filed 2026-06-10

And Hope has not pleaded facts showing she has raised a federal question, so Hope cannot show federal question jurisdiction, either.

Section 1331 requires a basis for a claim under federal law for a district court to exercise federal-question jurisdiction.

Antoine · filed 2026-06-22

More significantly, the Court cannot identify any basis for a claim under federal law sufficient to allow the Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Complaint fails a frivolity review and must be dismissed without prejudice because the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a complaint asserts federal causes of action that are not patently meritless.

Weise · filed 2026-06-23

Because Richmond has federal causes of action which this Court cannot determine as patently meritless, this Court holds that it has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a claim arises under federal law; a complaint that does not identify a basis for a federal claim does not establish that jurisdiction.

Najmi · filed 2026-06-26

Unless a matter involves one of the few areas over which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction, a district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a case only where the matter involves a federal question arising “under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“federal question jurisdiction”), or if “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (“diversity jurisdiction”). ... She does not explain the specific nature of her claims or the alleged grounds for federal jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court cannot identify any basis for a claim sufficient to allow the Court to exercise jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint cites only state law and identifies no federal constitutional, statutory, or treaty basis.

Crisdon v. North Gate II · filed 2026-06-29

Although Crisdon’s complaint asserts federal question jurisdiction, he does not cite to the Constitution or any federal laws or treaties of the United States; instead, Crisdon cites to several New Jersey state laws pertaining to traffic laws and parking signage. Thus, the District Court correctly concluded that it did not have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a cause of action arising under the Constitution or federal law.

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Federal Trade Commission · filed 1975-07-03

Plaintiff’s allegations do state a cause of action which arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Court therefore views jurisdiction as proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law election recount claim when federal law does not occupy the field of ballot-counting rules.

McIntyre v. Michael Fallahay and Frank McCloskey Frank McCloskey v. Richard D. McIntyre · filed 1985-07-02

We have decided a single question — whether federal law so occupies the field that any effort to establish legal rules for counting ballots in an election to the House necessarily “arises under” federal law, even if the complaint asks only for the adjudication of issues of state law. We have held that state and federal rules for counting ballots can coexist in the absence of federal legislation explicitly preempting state rules.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief despite the Tucker Act or the McCarran Amendment.

South Delta Water Agency v. United States · filed 1985-07-26

Because South Delta seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, not damages, the Tucker Act does not preclude jurisdiction under section 1331. ... Therefore, unlike the Quiet Title Act, the McCarran Amendment does not preclude district court jurisdiction under section 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Robinson v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. · filed 1990-12-11

As discussed above, the claims contained within the plaintiffs' complaint in this action are each based wholly on state law. Because claims against bankruptcy trustees do not fall within an area completely preempted by the force of federal law, this case could not have been commenced in federal court on the basis of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law.

Anne Marie Smith, Individually and on Behalf of Persons Similarly Situated, Appellant v. Industrial Valley… · filed 1992-04-02

Following Merrell Dow, we hold that a private federal remedy for violating a federal statute is a prerequisite for finding federal question jurisdiction in this circumstance.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to allege facts invoking a federal question to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Awofolu v. Public Storage Management Inc. Fran Stapher Harvey Lenkin, President Obren B. Gerich, Secretary · filed 1993-05-14

Because Awofolu failed to allege any facts invoking a federal question, the district court properly dismissed his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Neely v. Club Med Management Services, Inc. · filed 1995-07-26

Section 1331 provides that the federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1988). ... Plaintiff clearly meets that standard, for whether she could assert claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law is a question of federal law.

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

Martin v. Shalala · filed 1995-07-31

We conclude, therefore, as did the district court, that there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over this claim for Part B increased benefits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts violations of federal statutes.

Ware v. Fleetboston Financial Corp. · filed 2006-05-02

In addition, the district court had § 1331 federal question jurisdiction because Ware asserted violations of federal statutes.

Section 1331 does not give district courts jurisdiction over covered federal employees’ challenges to covered adverse actions when the CSRA provides the exclusive review scheme, even if the employees raise constitutional claims.

Elgin v. Department of the Treasury · filed 2012-06-11

Given the painstaking detail with which the CSRA sets out the method for covered employees to obtain review of adverse employment actions, it is fairly discernible that Congress intended to deny such employees an additional avenue of review in district court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over local territorial tax claims that lack a substantial, disputed question of federal law as a necessary element.

Armstrong v. CNMI · filed 2009-08-07

These local tax law claims do not possess, as necessary elements, “substantial, disputed” questions of federal law.

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

FEDERAL SAV. AND LOAN CORP. v. Capozzi · filed 1987-01-23

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these counts under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 12 U.S.C. § 1730(k)(1)(A) and (B).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction, but the Arbitration Act does not by itself create jurisdiction under it.

Higgins v. United States Postal Service · filed 1987-02-11

No less an authority than the United States Supreme Court has described the Act as “something of an anomaly in the field of federal-court jurisdiction. It creates a body of federal substantive law establishing and regulating the duty to honor an agreement to arbitrate, yet it does , not create any independent federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or otherwise.” ... Plaintiffs concede that section 9 does not create any independent jurisdiction, and the Court agrees that this is the proper view of section 9 despite the differences in statutory language between section 9 and sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

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

Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Railroad Commission of Texas · filed 1987-06-17

The RRC has made several arguments disputing the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter. Those arguments are: (1) the Railroads lack standing to assert the interests of the federal government; (2) no case or controversy exists; (3) the case is not ripe; and (4) no federal question jurisdiction exists. ... The arguments made in this case, identical to those made in MoPac I, have no more merit here than they did there, and will be rejected for the reasons stated in MoPac I. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

French v. People Express Airlines, Inc. · filed 1987-10-09

28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that: ... The District Courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. ... As this case arises under the Warsaw Convention, this court has original jurisdiction, and the case is properly removable under to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

Section 1331 covers only actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Levai v. Law · filed 2007-08-24

The district court properly dismissed the action because the complaint asserts no valid basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Miguel v. Country Funding Corp., 309 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir.2002) (“The party asserting federal jurisdiction has the burden of establishing it.”); see also Adelt v. Richmond Sch. Dist., 439 F.2d 718, 718 (9th Cir.1971) (per curiam) (only actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States are within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a)).

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a claim arises under a federal statute or the federal Constitution.

Cintron v. Lang · filed 2020-07-27

The court can exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s case only if he is suing for a violation of a federal statute or the federal Constitution.

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

Morgan v. United States · filed 2021-06-28

28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not vest this Court with jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction for claims that state no cause of action under the federal Constitution or statutes.

Elrich v. Weaver · filed 1985-01-17

The district court found that Elrich's claims did not state a cause of action under the federal Constitution or statutes. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. ... We find that we agree with the conclusions of the district court.

Section 1331 generally requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well pleaded complaint; complete preemption can make a state law claim a federal claim.

Hyde v. IATSE Local Union 64 · filed 2019-01-29

Federal jurisdiction based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires that a question “arising under the Constitutions, laws, or treaties of the United States” be present on the face of the plaintiff’s well pleaded complaint.

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

De Soto Management LLC v. Williams · filed 2019-10-02

The Complaint does not include any claim "arising under the Constitution, laws, ... or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Hann v. Ketterer · filed 2020-03-04

The Complaint does not include any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, ... or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides no federal question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts no federal claim and its state law claims do not depend on resolving a federal law question.

Boyd v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-03-06

No federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the master complaint asserts no federal claim and the state law claims alleged in the complaint do not depend on the resolution of a federal law question.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff sues under a federal statute that creates a right of action in federal court.

Cox v. Lee · filed 2020-04-17

The federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is applicable only when the plaintiff sues under a federal statute that creates a right of action in federal court.

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

Fressadi v. Glover · filed 2020-05-07

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under” federal law. ... Here, Plaintiff’s Case 2 did not merely present the semblance of a federal issue or claim—Plaintiff, as master of his Complaint, chose to assert claims arising and created ... under a federal statute. ... Defendants did not err in removing Case 2 to federal court and this Court did not err when it refused to remand it to state court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction based solely on a request for injunctive or declaratory relief.

Alpine County v. South Tahoe Public Utility District · filed 2020-09-24

While ... plaintiff argues that these are also separate federal claims, neither a claim for injunctive relief nor a claim for declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, can ... act as a free-standing claim sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal cause of action on the face of a well pleaded complaint; an anticipated defense does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Howell v. Do · filed 2020-10-01

Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil action to arise only if a “well pleaded complaint” alleges a cause of action based on federal law—an “actual or anticipated defense” does not confer federal jurisdiction. ... With no issues of federal law on the face of the ... Complaint, Mr. Do has conceded that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction in this ... matter.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law to appear in the complaint for federal-question jurisdiction.

TBB Valley Investments, LLC. v. Atkins · filed 2021-03-01

The Complaint does not include any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, ... or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; a complaint that alleges no federal claim does not establish that jurisdiction.

Sparks v. Superior Court of Danbury · filed 2022-02-24

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... Therefore, Sparks has failed to allege a claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the plaintiff alleges no violation of federal law.

Pittman v. Wells Fargo, N.A. · filed 2023-01-03

Consequently, this Court has neither ... federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § ... 1332, over Plaintiff's claims.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; invoking the United States Code without identifying an applicable federal law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

McGee v. Auto Plus Towing · filed 2023-08-08

U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, ... laws, or treaties of the United States. ... Plaintiff brings his “acts of fraud” claim against Defendant under the “United ... States Code,” but he fails to specify which federal statutes or codes apply to his claim. ... Accordingly, for good cause appearing, ... the Court hereby DISMISSES this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal question jurisdiction is not established by alleging a violation of a pooling and servicing agreement.

Roberts v. The Bank of New York Mellon · filed 2023-09-19

Further, Plaintiff claims this Court has subject matter jurisdiction because he raises a federal question based on Defendants’ alleged pooling and ... servicing agreement violation. Id. at 3. These allegations are insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not establish federal question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal claim.

Mancillas v. American Homes for Rent · filed 2024-01-24

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to state a claim ... under a federal statute, the Complaint is silent. For this reason the Court finds Plaintiff fails to ... establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal statutory or constitutional question in the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Evaristo v. Dumlao · filed 2025-02-19

The state court Complaint contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer, (see Dkt. 1, NOR, Exh. ... B(Complaint for Unlawful Detainer)), and discloses no federal statutory or constitutional question that would support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims that arise unequivocally under state law.

Sorget · filed 2025-11-17

Because the plaintiffs’ claims unequivocally arise under state ... law, federal-question jurisdiction does not exist here.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the plaintiff cannot state a federal claim.

Mall · filed 2026-01-05

Plaintiff has not, and cannot, state a federal claim against Defendants for which relief can be ... granted in this Court, and therefore cannot establish federal question subject-matter jurisdiction.’

Section 1331 provides a basis for federal question jurisdiction when a complaint includes federal causes of action.

Tiwari · filed 2025-12-16

Tiwari’s original complaint included federal causes of action and therefore provided a basis for this Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction over ... Tiwari’s lawsuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 did not provide jurisdiction over the prisoner's petition on the allegations presented.

Ellis v. Parker · filed 1966-08-16

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1349, 1651, 2201 are clearly inapplicable.

Section 1331 requires a question arising under the Constitution or federal law and the requisite jurisdictional amount; whether the complaint states a claim is a separate inquiry.

Wynne v. Codd · filed 1976-08-06

As the majority aptly points out in Snead v. Department of Social Services, 409 F.Supp. 995 (S.D.N.Y.1975) (three-judge court), the question here is not really whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction, as under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 all that is required is a question arising under the Constitution or laws, and the requisite jurisdictional amount.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of IGRA, even when IGRA may provide no statutory right of action.

Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community · filed 2014-05-27

The general federal-question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, gives a district court subject matter jurisdiction to decide any claim alleging a violation of IGRA. Nothing in § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) or any other provision of IGRA limits that grant of jurisdiction (although those provisions may indicate that a party has no statutory right of action).

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging a violation of section 10(b), even if the allegations fail to state a claim for relief.

Giunta v. Dingman · filed 2018-06-19

A complaint which alleges a violation of section 10(b) is within the federal question jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, if the allegations fail to assert the facts necessary to sustain a claim for relief, the proper disposition is to dismiss the case on the merits under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). This constitutes an adjudication of the claim on the merits, not a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over a state-law dispossessory action that presents no federal question.

NOBLE · filed 2025-11-21

No federal ... question is presented by the dispossessory proceeding such that this Court would have been able to exercise original subject-matter jurisdiction over it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s state-law claims do not depend on a substantial question of federal law.

Davies v. Flury · filed 2023-10-10

Plaintiffs claims all arise under state law, and Plaintiffs right to relief is not dependent on a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 no longer supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a removed case when the plaintiff eliminates all federal claims and no other basis for federal jurisdiction remains.

Neroni · filed 2026-03-02

Here, Plaintiffs eliminated their federal law claims on which the removing Defendants based removal, and Defendants do not assert any alternative basis for this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court remands the action to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to hear a declaratory judgment action challenging Board inaction when no Board order permits direct review.

BankAmerica Corp. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System · filed 1979-06-08

We therefore hold that on that date the district court had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear BankAmerica's action for a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

Section 1331(a) does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over this dispute about HUD’s reallocation of housing funds.

T. R. Casey, Inc. v. Harris · filed 1979-06-11(a)

This Court does not have jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), i. e., this Court does not have Federal Question jurisdiction under the facts of this case.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a complaint that fails to state a cause of action for which the federal court can grant relief.

Buckley v. United States · filed 1980-08-12

Since we find that the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq. the plaintiff’s Motion for a Declaratory Judgment must also fail because this Court lacks an independent source of subject matter jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff.

Section 1331 supports federal jurisdiction when a complaint raises a federal question about the ICC’s authority over a joint rail line agreement.

Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Chicago and North Western Transportation Company, a Corporation · filed 1981-05-15

We find no error in the refusal to remand. The complaint asserts a federal question within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, and 1441.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a substantial claim asserting a federal right even when the availability of a private federal remedy remains unresolved.

Local Division 1285, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL CIO Clc v. Jackson Transit Authority · filed 1981-06-03

The opinion below proceeds on the assumption that subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is contingent upon the availability of a private federal remedy under Section 13(c). That approach is inconsistent with the analysis required by the Supreme Court in Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946). ... Our first determination, therefore, must be whether the Union's claim "arises under" the laws of the United States within the meaning of Section 1331. If it does, then federal jurisdiction obtains unless the claim is "immaterial," or "wholly insubstantial and frivolous," made "solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction," Id. at 682, 66 S.Ct. at 776.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution or federal laws.

Shell Oil Co. v. United States EEOC · filed 1981-09-22

28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Since the instant matter arises under an amendment of the United States Constitution and several United States laws, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

For actions subject to its former $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement, § 1331(a) conferred jurisdiction when the outcome depended on interpreting federal law and the amount exceeded that threshold.

COUNTY DEPT. OF PUBLIC WELFARE v. Stanton · filed 1982-09-02(a)

At the time this action was initiated, 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) granted original jurisdiction to district courts over matters arising under the laws of the United States where the value of the controversy exceeded $10,000.00. The test to determine if an action arises under the laws of the United States is whether the outcome of the controversy depends on an interpretation of a federal law. ... Since this action arises under federal law and has an amount in controversy exceeding $10,000.00, jurisdiction rests with this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

As it stood in 1980, § 1331(a) gave district courts jurisdiction over nonfrivolous claims arising under federal law or the Constitution against a federal agency.

Florida Board Of Business Regulation v. National Labor Relations Board · filed 1982-09-27(a)

Section 1331, as it stood in September 1980, gave the district court original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States and brought against the United States or any agency thereof. ... These claims obviously "arise under" the Constitution or law of the United States. Neither is frivolous or foreclosed by prior decision. ... Subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was clearly present.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction when the complaint states a cognizable federal claim on its face.

Armstrong v. Adams · filed 1989-03-08

In order for a court to have subject matter jurisdiction, the pleading must on its face state a cognizable claim for relief, and in a section 1983 action the plaintiff must be able to point to specific articulable constitutional rights that have been transgressed. ... This is an exercise of jurisdiction and we cannot conclude that it was in error.

Section 1331 did not provide federal-question jurisdiction over this contract claim despite the plaintiff's asserted due process and Commerce Clause violations.

Lyons v. Holmes International, Inc. Jerry Stanley Larry Seago Dennis L. Kee D & G Trucking Company Wayne Huey · filed 1990-09-19

After a careful review of the record, this court has determined that the district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 or 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332.

Section 1331 requires an independent federal question basis for jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action.

Albradco, Inc. v. Bevona · filed 1992-12-21

For a federal district court to have original jurisdiction in a non-diversity case, there must be a federal question "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1988 & Supp.1992). ... A declaratory judgment plaintiff must have an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of federal RCRA provisions even when a state administers an authorized hazardous waste program.

Coalition for Health Concern v. LWD, Inc. · filed 1993-10-21

While U.S. Dept. of Energy arguably supports the proposition that claims based on violations of Kentucky’s hazardous waste program do not arise under federal law, the holding does not preclude this action because each count of the complaint is expressly premised on a violation of the United States Code. The RCRA counts include nine violations of 42 U.S.C. § 6925 and one each of §§ 6930 and 6972. The court has subject matter jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 6972.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or the right to relief necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Dixon v. Nisley · filed 1994-01-05

Plaintiffs complaint therefore does not give rise to federal question subject matter jurisdiction. Federal law does not create plaintiffs cause of action. Plaintiffs right to relief does not necessarily depend on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a franchisor’s PMPA action even though the PMPA’s enforcement provision expressly authorizes suits by franchisees.

Shell Oil Co. v. Altina Associates, Inc. · filed 1994-07-19

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), 15 U.S.C. § 2801, et seq., 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity of citizenship and alleges that the matter in controversy exceeds $50,000, and 28 U.S.C. § 1337. ... The court further finds that franchisor can maintain this action under PMPA.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when resolving a property dispute necessarily involves federal law governing railroad abandonment.

Grantwood Village v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · filed 1996-09-09

Because the ICC has exclusive and plenary authority to determine whether a rail line has been abandoned, see, e.g., Chicago & N.W. Transp. v. Kalo Brick & Tile, Co., 450 U.S. 311, 321 (1981), the question of whether MoPac abandoned the right-of-way necessarily involves federal law. See id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Therefore, federal jurisdiction is proper and the district court did not err in refusing to remand this case to state court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state defamation claims when any NLRA preemption would place the claims within the NLRB’s exclusive jurisdiction.

Chirico v. Ceramic Tile Layers Union, Local 67 · filed 1998-07-30

The second is where the case arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (i.e. “federal question” jurisdiction). 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, the court lacks original jurisdiction even if the defendant’s preemption arguments are correct.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a prisoner’s federal claim when failure to exhaust administrative remedies is neither an element of the claim nor a barrier to its ripeness.

Michael Massey and John Otten, M.D. v. Helman · filed 2000-01-13

Rather, as we explained in Perez, so long as a prisoner has a federal claim and the failure to exhaust is not essential to the claim or the claim’s ripeness, then 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 give the court subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim that raises substantial questions of federal law and has a federal cause of action.

Rice v. Office of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance · filed 2001-08-14

The other potential basis for federal jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal question statute. This section confers jurisdiction over cases “arising under” federal law. For a case to arise under federal law, the federal question must be apparent on the face of a well-pleaded complaint, and Plaintiff’s cause of action must be created by federal law or, if it is a state-law cause of action, its resolution must necessarily turn on a substantial question of federal law, and that federal law in turn must create a private cause of action. ... Because this case involves substantial federal questions, the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a restitution claim that requires examining an ERISA plan’s terms and is preempted by ERISA.

Chaness & Simon, P.C. v. Simon · filed 2003-01-03

Likewise in this case, Plaintiff seeks restitution for an erroneous overpayment to Defendant. As a result, Plaintiffs claims will require the Court to examine the terms of this ERISA-governed plan. Therefore, this civil action, brought in federal court, relates to an ERISA-governed plan, see 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a), and thus, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over a claim for breach of a Standard Flood Insurance Policy because interpreting the policy under federal common law raises a substantial federal question.

Winkler v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 2003-06-03

Thus, because the complaint alleges a breach of an SFIP contract, a substantial federal question exists, and this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law tort claim when federal law may supply the conduct standard but preserves the state-law remedy.

Skydive Factory, Inc. v. Maine Aviation Corp. · filed 2003-06-25

And whether the First Circuit decides ultimately that there is no preemption of Maine tort law, or like the Third Circuit that there is preemption of the standard but not the remedy, the result is the same: the case must be Remanded for lack of a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law negligence and medical malpractice claims that present no nonfrivolous federal claim.

Shaffer · filed 2026-01-23

Even construing the pro se complaint liberally, the Court ... cannot discern a non-frivolous federal claim such that this ... Court's federal question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant ... to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 may be invoked.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no federal constitutional deprivation or other federal question.

Abulkhair v. Liberty Mutl Ins Co · filed 2011-08-04

Jurisdiction would exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal question statute, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), the jurisdictional counterpart to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Abulkhair’s complaint did not, however, adequately allege a deprivation of a constitutional right, and we reach this conclusion even in view of our obligation to construe pro se complaints liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over actions arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Thompson v. United States · filed 2011-11-16

First, plaintiffs do not bring an action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” such that the federal district courts have jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a Miller Act claim when no required payment bond was secured.

Arena v. Graybar Elec. Co., Inc. · filed 2012-01-25

Without a secured bond, there can be no Miller Act claim. And without his Miller Act claim, Arena lost the anchor of his federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires facts establishing a federal question; vague defamation allegations that show no constitutional violation do not establish jurisdiction.

Brodzki v. Clear Channel Communications · filed 2012-02-02

Thus, the district court correctly concluded that, even taking the allegations in the complaint as true, Mr. Brodzki has failed to state a claim of a constitutional violation. Accordingly, ... he has failed to plead facts demonstrating proper jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a federal claim even when the complaint fails to state that claim adequately.

Wiggins v. 11 Kew Garden Court · filed 2012-08-28

As such, Wiggins’ claims that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy involving his state suit allege federal causes of action. Accordingly, the district court’s conclusion that the amended complaint did not contain an arguable basis for jurisdiction was in error.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when a complaint presents a federal question.

Chapman v. Howard University · filed 2013-01-17

Plaintiff has not pleaded a sufficient amount in controversy to bring this case within the Court's diversity jurisdiction, and the complaint does not present a federal question.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution, including an alleged denial of due process that ultimately fails to state a claim.

Horn v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 2013-04-26

Since this Court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it finds that plaintiff has sufficiently rebutted the local defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1).

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction when a claim arises under federal law, but does not itself provide relief.

Grapentine v. Pawtucket Credit Union · filed 2013-06-17

Since there is no independent federal statutory or federal common law claim, this Court does not have jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a case to implicate substantive federal law to raise a federal question.

Youkelsone v. Federal Deposit Insurance ex rel. Washington Mutual Bank · filed 2014-03-28

For a case to raise a federal question within the scope 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it must implicate some provision of substantive federal law; Youkelsone’s state-law tort and contract actions do not.

Section 1331 provides federal district court jurisdiction when a complaint presents a federal question.

Turner v. District of Columbia · filed 2014-06-10

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... The factual allegations do not present a federal question, and the District of Columbia is not subject to diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims seeking to enjoin a state officer’s alleged violations of federal law.

Google, Incorporated v. James Hood, III · filed 2016-05-18

Here too, Google’s claims seeking to enjoin a state officer’s alleged violations of federal law invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an easement dispute that does not necessarily raise a federal question.

Appalachian Power Company v. William Nissen, II · filed 2016-12-19

Because under Pressl, the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 16 U.S.C. § 825p, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under RESPA.

Madura v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. · filed 2017-12-04

Also, the district court had federal question jurisdiction in the underlying federal proceeding, as the Maduras raised claims ... under RESPA.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a dispute over an element of a federal claim goes to the merits rather than the court’s jurisdiction.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. My Big Coin Pay, Inc. · filed 2018-09-26

As an initial matter, although defendants suggest that this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction for lack of a federal question, their underlying argument that the alleged conduct did not involve a “commodity” goes to the merits of plaintiff’s claim, not jurisdiction. This court has subject matter jurisdiction because the case presents a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and because federal law expressly authorizes CFTC to sue and the court to grant appropriate relief, see 7 U.S.C. §13a-1(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1345.

Section 1331 requires a properly pleaded federal question; merely referring to a federal civil rights statute does not establish jurisdiction.

SON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PA · filed 2019-05-31

As the Complaint does not properly plead a federal question, this Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when complete preemption converts it into a federal claim.

Daily v. Zeon Chemicals Limited Partnership · filed 2019-06-25

The only exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule is the “complete pre-emption” doctrine. ... If not, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the case must be remanded.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over an action asserting § 1983 and other federal-law claims even when those claims fail to state a claim.

Morelli v. Hyman · filed 2019-06-28

So construed, there is federal question jurisdiction and therefore, the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only a state-law breach-of-contract claim.

Gibson v. Tin · filed 2019-07-24

Plaintiff is alleging, at most, a state law claim for breach of contract. She has, therefore, not asserted federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor does federal subject matter jurisdiction exist based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because the parties are all citizens of the same state and the amount in controversy is less than $75,000.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over this FEHBA reimbursement dispute merely because FEHBA preempts state law.

Shaw v. APWU Health Plan · filed 2019-08-08

The Court does not have original jurisdiction over the case. McVeigh, 547 U.S. at 683. ... Nevils's preemption holding does not change McVeigh's jurisdictional holding.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction when the complaint pleads a federal cause of action, including a claim under § 1983.

Joiner v. Mississippi Department of Corrections · filed 2019-09-05

Because the face of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint demonstrates that this action arises under federal law, see Vaden, 556 U.S. at 59–61, this Court has original jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; state-law claims and reliance on a federal statute that creates no private cause of action do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Thomas v. Culpepper · filed 2019-09-20

Plaintiff cites no authority that would sustain a federal cause of action, and Plaintiff’s reliance on the “congressional acts” cited in her Amended Complaint do not save her claims. ... Thus, as the report correctly concluded, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises no federal constitutional or statutory claim.

DUGLAS v. SCHULZ · filed 2019-09-25

There is no basis for the exercise of federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 because Ms. Duglas raises no federal constitutional or statutory claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a complaint invoking a federal statute and its remedies even when the claim fails on the merits.

Snellgrove v. Common Bond Title, LLC (MAG2) · filed 2019-09-30

Plaintiff’s RESPA claim “arises under the . . . laws . . . of the United States.” § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a civil action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

King v. DFN Investments, LLC. · filed 2019-12-05

These alleged grounds do not demonstrate the existence of a federal question, nor do any of the allegations in the Complaint suggest that this action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Because the Complaint does not properly allege that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, the Complaint must be dismissed.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleging wrongful foreclosure and eviction presents no federal-law claim.

Brown v. Bank of America · filed 2019-12-06

Even with the lenient pleading standards afforded pro se plaintiffs, the Court does not perceive a claim under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Fair Housing Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, or any other federal statute. Rather, the allegations loosely amount to claims for wrongful foreclosure and eviction, and perhaps for failure to disclose property defects to a home buyer. These matters fall squarely under the province of state law.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question; claims devoid of a federal controversy do not establish jurisdiction.

Hunter v. Cantrell · filed 2020-04-08

Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; a complaint sounding in state contract law without facts supporting a federal claim does not establish jurisdiction.

Hewes v. Kirkbrae Country Club · filed 2020-05-18

The Plaintiff has failed to establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332; he has demonstrated neither the existence of a federal question nor diversity.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over an Eighth Amendment claim against a local government, even though the Amendment applies to local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gutierrez v. City of Long Beach · filed 2020-05-27

To the contrary, Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim raises a question of federal law over which this Court would have original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s allegations present a federal question.

Trinh v. Citizen Business Banking · filed 2020-05-29

It is apparent from Trinh’s filings that her allegations do not form a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s only purported federal claims are FTCA claims improperly asserted against a private company.

KUKA v. U.S. TRUCK & TRAILER SERVICE, INC. · filed 2020-06-30

Thus, there is no cognizable claim in this matter that arises “. . . under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” and we cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the complaint; federal claims the court finds patently frivolous do not support jurisdiction.

JOANNOU v. WATKINS · filed 2020-08-27

Thus, to the extent Plaintiff attempted to plead a Section 1983 claim, such a claim is patently frivolous. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not present a federal question that supports federal jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the pleaded federal claim fails to state a claim and no other federal claim is identified.

Greene v. State of Massachusetts · filed 2020-10-16

Here, the Court does not have federal question subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a Rule 22 interpleader action when a claimant could bring a federal coercive action concerning the funds, even if the stakeholder’s claim raises no federal question.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Blakstad · filed 2020-12-17

Rule 22 requires an independent basis of subject matter jurisdiction; either upon a federal question or diversity of citizenship, as provided in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. ... As is relevant here, “federal question jurisdiction exists if such jurisdiction would have existed in a coercive action by the defendant” even if “the plaintiff’s claim does not raise a federal question.” ... Because the SEC’s claim to those funds arises out of federal law, Amos’ petition does as well.

Section 1331 requires an action to arise under federal law; allegations about state election law that present no federal claim do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

PETERSON v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS · filed 2020-12-29

To establish federal question jurisdiction, the action must “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, even construing the complaint in the light most favorable to Peterson, she has not presented any basis for federal question jurisdiction for her case to be heard by this court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents only state-law claims and the cited federal statutes create no civil cause of action.

Aaebo v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas · filed 2021-01-21

A plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal authority or confusion of various legal theories does not prevent claims from prevailing, but the Court, when construing the Amended Petition liberally, only sees state law causes of action. Therefore, without a federal question at issue, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction on this basis.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed and complete preemption does not apply.

Wade v. Tri -Wire Employee Stock Option Trust · filed 2021-03-05

All claims arising under federal question jurisdiction have been dismissed, exhausting the Court’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, but citations to unrelated federal authorities do not establish that jurisdiction.

Arzaga v. Gill · filed 2021-03-18

Although Plaintiff may wish to file a civil rights action or some other type of action over which federal courts have jurisdiction, his current Complaint fails to invoke federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1343(a)(3), which creates federal jurisdiction over certain civil rights claims, 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, which creates federal jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” or any other source of federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to establish a basis for its asserted federal claims.

AIKENS v. CIRCLE K · filed 2021-05-24

Hence, federal question jurisdiction is not properly invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; a claim based solely on state law does not establish that jurisdiction.

Pearsall v. Warden of Baltimore County Detention Center · filed 2021-05-26

First, to provide a federal forum for plaintiffs who seek to vindicate federal rights, Congress has conferred on the district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... These grounds do not apply here because, as explained above, Plaintiff has not presented a valid Sixth Amendment claim.

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

Moore v. Johnson and Johnson Corporate Headquarters · filed 2021-06-03

Federal subject matter jurisdiction may be based on (1) federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint must establish either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of substantial questions of federal law. ... However, Plaintiff does not allege that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over medical malpractice claims when the complaints allege no claim arising under federal law.

Joseph v. Queens Hospital Center · filed 2021-06-11

The Court also concludes that it lacks federal question jurisdiction over the above-captioned matters because the Complaints are devoid of claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”5 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only state-law claims and violations of criminal statutes that create no civil cause of action.

Aaebo v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas · filed 2021-07-15

Therefore, without a federal question at issue, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction based on a federal question.

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

Morton v. Grenada Women's Clinic · filed 2021-10-08

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

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint presents neither a federal cause of action nor a substantial question of federal law.

Delap v. Mackey · filed 2021-11-17

Since federal law does not create the cause of action nor does Plaintiffs’ relief depend on the resolution of a “substantial question of federal law,” id., the Court finds that there is no federal question present at this time.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to allege an action arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States for federal question jurisdiction.

Sanders v. Santa Fe Gold Corporation · filed 2021-11-30

There is no federal question jurisdiction because the Complaint does not allege that this action arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Breneisen v. Countryside Chevrolet/Buick/GMC Inc · filed 2021-12-01

This court conclusively has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the action arises under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts only a state-law claim and relief does not depend on resolving a substantial federal question.

Spanos v. Vick · filed 2021-12-20

First, Spanos fails to allege a violation of “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” which could support federal jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a federal statutory claim even when the defendant disputes whether the statute covers its conduct.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Nexus Services, Inc. · filed 2022-03-22

Here, plaintiffs bring a claim under a federal statute, the CFPA; therefore, this court has federal question jurisdiction. As in Holloway, whether plaintiffs have adequately pled all elements of their claim, such as whether defendants are “covered persons” under the CFPA, is not a jurisdictional question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the operative complaint alleges neither a federal cause of action nor a substantial federal question.

United States v. New Mexico Environment Department · filed 2022-08-18

The Court, however, concludes that the Amended Complaint insufficiently supports federal question jurisdiction. ... Without the allegation that the Permit exceeds the wavier of sovereign immunity, the Amended Complaint does not present a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim alleging only reputational harm from slander or defamation.

Pass v. New York State · filed 2022-08-18

To the extent that he alleges that he suffered merely reputational harm, he has failed to assert any federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is conceded to be unavailable and any remaining claim sounds in state law.

Gilbert v. City of Walterboro · filed 2022-09-07

Given Plaintiff’s concession that his claim alleging violation of the Coronavirus Response Act is not viable, the Magistrate Judge found that this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity jurisdiction has not been asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... After de novo review of the Report, the record, and the applicable law, the Court overrules Defendant’s objections and grants the motion to remand. Magistrate Judge Baker was correct to conclude that, with Plaintiff’s concession regarding the effect of the sunset provision of the Coronavirus Response Act, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter and it would, therefore, be inappropriate to consider Defendant’s arguments for dismissal under Rule 12(c).

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they involve fact-specific allegations of noncompliance with federal regulations.

Adams v. 3M Company · filed 2022-09-27

The record simply does not feature a contested, substantial issue of federal law adequate to trigger the “slim category Grable exemplifies.” ... There is no federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 in these cases.

Section 1331 does not give a federal court jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not require resolving a substantial federal question; attaching an EEOC charge does not change that.

Rivera-Parson v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc. · filed 2022-10-18

The Court lacks federal question jurisdiction because the Plaintiff pleads only claims for violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims unless the claims necessarily raise a federal issue; a later motion concerning federal duties does not suffice.

Henni v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company · filed 2023-01-10

Having failed to identify a federal issue necessarily raised by Plaintiffs’ claims, Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that this Court has jurisdiction, and thus, remand is required.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims alleging constitutional violations or violations of Section 1983.

BERNAL v. BOROUGH OF BOGOTA · filed 2023-02-09

Here, Bernal brings claims alleging violations of his constitutional rights and § 1983, falling squarely within Defendants’ accurate articulation of the standard for subject matter jurisdiction with the Court.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction when the complaint alleges a substantial federal claim, even if it does not cite the statute providing the remedy.

Hobbs v. Carter · filed 2023-03-14

In determining whether federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a court must look to the well-pleaded complaint alone. ... Accordingly, the Court finds it has federal-question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law when a federal question appears on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

Mata v. Washington State Employment Security Department · filed 2023-03-15

District courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal jurisdiction “exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). ... Because there are no other defendants identified for which the Court would be allowed to exercise subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiff fails to establish the existence of federal question jurisdiction.

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

Williams v. Robison · filed 2023-03-30

Ms. Williams cannot establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because he has neither sued under a federal law that creates a cognizable federal question nor shown that his right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.