28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no federal claim.

Kelly v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association Securitized Asset Backed Receivable Mortgage Pass-Though Certificate - We · filed 2020-02-18

Therefore, the Court has neither federal question jurisdiction nor diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims.

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

Lambert v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-03-05

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 requires allegations from which a court can discern a federal question; selecting “Federal Question” on a complaint form alone does not establish jurisdiction.

Maldonado-Arce v. Mr. Cox Special · filed 2025-10-06

Although Plaintiff selected the “Federal Question” as a basis for jurisdiction in the Complaint Form, no reference to any statute was included and the Court cannot discern from the facts included what the claim is about.

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

Knight v. United Medical Center · filed 2025-10-07

Because the complaint does not establish diversity jurisdiction or present a federal question, this case will be dismissed by separate order.

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

Short v. Great Lakes Bay Legal, Attorneys & Counselors · filed 2025-10-07

To begin with, Short does invoke federal question jurisdiction because none of her allegations “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts no cognizable federal claim.

Zahir v. Equitable Interest and Property of Naja Talibah Zahir · filed 2025-10-09

As such, Plaintiff fails to assert a federal question upon which the Court may exercise its jurisdiction over her claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction where the asserted federal rule and constitutional theory provide no basis for the claims.

Wright · filed 2025-10-16

Plaintiff attempts to invoke federal question jurisdiction under Fed. R. Crim. P. 55 and the Eighth Amendment. Dkt. No. 10 at 3. However, neither provides a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal cause of action or other discernible basis for a federal question.

Wayne v. Unknown · filed 2025-10-17

First, he has failed to state a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. He 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 provided in the Complaint.

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

Reddic · filed 2025-10-21

Plaintiff does not allege any federal claims and she does not allege the citizenship of each of the defendants. ... The plaintiff has not established federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction when a complaint brings a claim under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Bova · filed 2025-10-22

In reviewing the plaintiff’s amended complaint, Judge Schwab provides that there is no indication that the plaintiff is bringing his claim(s) under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Therefore, the court would not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. ... As a result, his objections will be overruled and the report of Judge Schwab will be adopted in its entirety.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law defamation claim when its disputed federal issue is fact-bound and insufficiently substantial, and federal jurisdiction would upset the congressionally approved balance of state and federal judicial responsibilities.

Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg · filed 2008-12-19

In our view, the plaintiffs’ defamation claims do not raise a substantial issue of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a legal-malpractice claim against attorneys that presents no federal question.

Raffinee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-03-04

As for her other claims, the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider her complaint against her attorneys under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) and 1332 (diversity).

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the complaint arises under state domestic relations law or common law tort law rather than federal law.

Upson v. the District of Columbia · filed 2010-03-05

In any case, the complaint does not establish a basis for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; state-law tort and criminal allegations do not create federal-question jurisdiction merely because the plaintiff invokes federal law.

Jones v. Mirza · filed 2017-04-13

In his original complaint, Jones alleged that the District Court had federal question jurisdiction; therefore, the claims raised in the complaint must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Jones did not seek a remedy granted by the Constitution or federal law, and none of the claims asserted against the defendants arise out of or implicate the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law tort claims merely because the complaint makes conclusory references to civil rights statutes.

Jimi Rose v. Husenaj · filed 2017-08-31

Rose’s vague reference to “civil rights violations” and his citation to “Tile 42, Subsections 1981, 1983, 1985, & 1986” did not create a federal question. Despite Rose’s bare citations, none of his claims arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor does Rose seek a remedy granted by the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims when the federal statute invoked provides no right of action for those claims.

Willie Pearl Smith v. Hospital Authority of Cobb County · filed 2017-09-19

In short, Smith has failed to state a claim arising under the laws or Constitution of the United States for which jurisdiction may be based under § 1331, and we affirm.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction over state-law legal malpractice claims when the plaintiff asserts no basis for a federal question.

Collins v. Epstein · filed 2018-05-03

The remaining claims in Collins’ complaint are legal malpractice claims against her attorneys, which the District Court properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Collins has not asserted any basis for federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and she failed to establish diversity jurisdiction over her state-law claims.

Section 1331 did not supply original jurisdiction over the Alabama common-law tort claims in this case; those claims depended on supplemental jurisdiction.

Stinson v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ. · filed 2019-02-05

There is never federal-question jurisdiction over common-law claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a tort claim that raises no federal question.

Lundgren v. Universal Wilde · filed 2019-06-04

Finally, to the extent that plaintiff now asserts a claim for negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Court lacks jurisdiction over that claim. That claim, which sounds in tort, does not involve a federal question nor has plaintiff shown that there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law tort claims that do not present a federal claim, even when the complaint invokes § 1983.

Jackson, Jr. v. Magoon Estates Limited · filed 2019-07-30

Jackson asserts only state law tort claims, including negligence and medical malpractice, and does not allege or explain how any named Defendant was acting under color of state law. Even a liberal construction of his claims does not reveal any basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims such as assault, libel, and slander.

Brown v. Baltimore County, Maryland · filed 2019-09-16

A dispute over damages caused by assault, libel and slander are state tort claims, and do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction, unless diversity jurisdiction is present.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims based on the Restatement of Torts and allegations that do not reasonably suggest a violation of federal law.

Fehderau v. Goodwill Industries, Inc. · filed 2019-10-02

Such actions do not involve a federal question, and Plaintiff’s other sparse allegations of harassment, invasion of privacy, and stalking simply do not reasonably suggest Defendant violated federal law. As it stands, the Complaint’s allegations fail to establish that jurisdiction exists under section 1331 or section 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law legal malpractice claim that alleges no violation of federal law.

Franklin v. Pride · filed 2019-10-10

Though he filed the complaint on the form used for commencing actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, there is no allegation that the action arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” as required for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims based on ICCTA preemption when the ICCTA supplies no replacement federal remedy.

Minton v. Paducah & Louisville Railway, Inc. · filed 2019-10-29

The ICCTA does not create a federal remedy for state tort actions related to railroads. ... The Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plead claims arising under federal law; claims that appear to be state-law torts do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Collado v. Ayala · filed 2019-11-08

The other possibility for jurisdiction—federal question jurisdiction—also appears to be lacking. Although Plaintiff makes several claims in his complaint, none appear federal in nature.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when even a liberal reading of the complaint yields only state tort claims.

King v. Thomas · filed 2019-12-12

Even the most liberal reading of Plaintiff’s allegations against Thomas would not produce claims “arising under federal law.” Plaintiff’s allegations resemble state tort claims, not federal claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only state-law tort claims and no facts showing a federal claim.

Rios v. MTA · filed 2020-01-10

Because Plaintiff does not allege facts demonstrating a federal law claim, his complaint does not demonstrate that this Court has federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction for an FAA motion to vacate an arbitration award when the claims sound only in state contract and tort law.

WEBER v. PNC INVESTMENTS LLC · filed 2020-02-05

Because Weber’s claims against PNC Investments sound in contract and tort, they do not arise under federal law. Thus, federal question jurisdiction does not exist in Weber’s case.

Section 1331’s general grant of federal-question jurisdiction does not supply jurisdiction over Federal Tort Claims Act claims; the FTCA itself does.

Blanche Brown v. United States · filed 2020-07-30

However, it is evident that the Court analyzed Brown’s complaint to determine whether it had FTCA subject matter jurisdiction as a threshold matter, given that “the FTCA itself is the source of federal courts’ jurisdiction to hear tort claims made against the Government,” not the general grant of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over tort claims against the federal government; the FTCA supplies that jurisdiction.

BOHNENKAMP v. WHISTERBARTH · filed 2021-04-23

The FTCA itself, not the general grant of federal question jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is the source of a federal court’s jurisdiction to hear tort claims against the Government.

Section 1331’s general grant of federal-question jurisdiction does not supply jurisdiction over Federal Tort Claims Act claims; jurisdiction for those claims arises under the Act and section 1346.

MOHN v. CARDONA · filed 2022-04-14

Our jurisdiction, if we have it, does “not come from the general grant of federal-question jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a tort claim that presents no federal question.

O'Connor v. Doe · filed 2023-02-10

A tort claim does not present a federal question, and because the parties appear to be residents of the District of Columbia, plaintiff does not demonstrate diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim to enforce federal trust duties under the APA, including duties grounded in equity and federal common law.

Cobell v. Kempthorne · filed 2008-08-07

That argument fails in the face of repeated holdings, in this case, that this Court may exercise jurisdiction over claims for breach of trust under the auspices of the APA, and that the trust duties that plaintiffs may seek to enforce in this Court are imposed, not only by statute, but by established principles of equity and federal common law. ... There is no doubt that this raises a federal question. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a federal district court jurisdiction to review an agency’s response when a plaintiff alleges that the agency improperly denied records requested under FOIA.

Lewis v. United States Department of Justice · filed 2009-04-22

Plaintiff’s allegation that defendant improperly denied records requested under the FOIA is sufficient to confer “federal question” jurisdiction upon this Court to review the lawfulness of defendant’s actions.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to a federal employment statute when the Civil Service Reform Act provides no administrative review or exclusive Federal Circuit review of that claim.

Elgin v. United States · filed 2010-03-11

Because the MSPB lacked jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs’ claims, the Federal Circuit likewise lacks exclusive jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs’ suit. What remains is this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear claims arising under the Constitution.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims against an agency when the CSRA does not displace district court jurisdiction.

Wigton v. Berry · filed 2013-06-07

First, in the absence of the CSRA exclusivity, 28 U.S.C. § 1331’s grant of federal question jurisdiction remains in full force. ... It is apparent that in a case such as this, an action by federal employees against a federal agency asserting rights under the Federal Constitution in a property interest granted by federal statute, federal question jurisdiction is satisfied.

Section 1331 gives district courts authority to hear cases arising under federal law but does not waive federal sovereign immunity; together with the APA, it can support judicial review.

Maudlin v. Federal Emergency Management Agency · filed 2015-09-30

FEMA’s challenge to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is misplaced. Plaintiffs allege federal question jurisdiction not as a waiver of sovereign immunity but as a source of the court's adjudicatory competence to hear cases arising under federal law. Plaintiffs cite § 1331 in conjunction with the APA. The combination of the two can provide for some judicial review not otherwise barred.

Section 1331 does not permit a plaintiff to establish federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption of a state administrative complaint when there is no state-court action to remove.

Dickten Masch Plastics, LLC v. Williams · filed 2016-08-10

Because there is no lawsuit in state court to remove, Dickten Masch may not avail itself of complete preemption and “recharacterize a state law complaint displaced by [§ 1332(a) ] as an action arising under federal law.”

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over a settlement enforcement claim that turns on a substantial federal question about a state education agency’s duties under the IDEA.

M.K. v. Prestige Acad. Charter Sch. · filed 2018-01-31

Having considered the parties' arguments, I am persuaded that jurisdiction exists under § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; a dispute over a pasture lease does not arise under federal law merely because the defendants are tribal members and a federal agency official helped mediate it.

Fox v. Colombe · filed 2018-02-28

Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires the presence of a federal question. ... There appears to be no constitutional provision, federal statute 3 . or treaty that gives a federal district court jurisdiction over South Dakota residents’ dispute over a lease for pasture land or refund for monies wrongfully retained by South Dakota defendants who allegedly breached such an agreement. This remains true even if the defendants are members of a federally recognized Indian tribe and the Superintendent was involved in trying to resolve the dispute.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an APA claim when no other statute precludes jurisdiction.

Dhakal v. Jefferson Sessions III · filed 2018-07-13

Although the APA is not an independent grant of jurisdiction, Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977), where federal jurisdiction is ... not precluded by another statute, general federal question ju- risdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See id. at 105, 109.

Courts assessing whether an agency review scheme impliedly precludes Section 1331 jurisdiction first ask whether that intent is fairly discernable from the review statute’s text, structure, and purpose.

Morris & Dickson Co. v. Whitaker · filed 2018-12-28

To determine whether jurisdiction is impliedly precluded, a court must first ask whether congressional intent to preclude jurisdiction is "fairly discernable" from the text, structure, and purpose of the statute establishing the agency review scheme.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to raise a federal question; mentioning a federal agency without identifying a substantive federal claim does not establish jurisdiction.

Scott v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2019-09-30

In this case, plaintiff’s complaint does not “necessarily draw[] into question” any federal law. The closest it comes to implicating anything of federal character is by mentioning the Securities and Exchange Commission, but it does so apparently only to provide color to the allegation that the defendants took actions, without plaintiff’s knowledge or approval, related to a trust to which she may have some right.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over Due Process and APA claims even when an APA claim may fail the final-agency-action requirement.

Beberman v. U.S. Department of State · filed 2019-10-30

Final agency action is not a jurisdictional requirement under the APA. In other words, even assuming Beberman’s APA claim fails to challenge final agency action, that would not deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction over it, although it would mean that she does not have a cause of action. ... For these reasons, the Court does, in fact, have jurisdiction over Beberman’s Due Process and APA claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over an APA suit even when the APA’s final-agency-action requirement is unmet, because that requirement goes to the cause of action.

Slater Park Land and Livestock, LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers · filed 2019-10-30

This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, whereas the APA’s requirements are a part of Plaintiff’s cause of action.

Section 1331, together with the APA, provides jurisdiction to compel unreasonably delayed agency action when the plaintiff has a clear right to relief, the agency has a clear duty, and no adequate remedy exists.

Connally v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-24

Because Plaintiff has established a clear duty by the Commissioner to adjudicate Plaintiff's request for a waiver of the overpayment of disability insurance benefits within a reasonable time, Plaintiff's clear right to receive that decision within a reasonable time, and that no other adequate remedy is available, Plaintiff has carried his burden and established that jurisdiction is proper under the APA and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and is entitled to mandamus relief.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over actions arising under federal law but does not create an independent cause of action.

Jabr v. Ohio Department of Taxation · filed 2023-10-16

First, plaintiff argues that he is asserting a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This statute does not provide for an independent cause of action. Rather, it gives subject matter jurisdiction to federal courts over actions arising under federal law (federal questions).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a HIPAA claim because HIPAA creates no private right of action.

Coles v. Howard University · filed 2023-10-31

Indeed, it must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) precisely because, absent a private right of action, it presents no federal question that establishes subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over § 1983 claims based on federal law; failure to show state action is a merits issue.

Brook v. Ruotolo · filed 2024-08-23

Adam’s section 1983 claims were clearly based on federal law. While the district court concluded that those section 1983 claims failed because none of the defendants was a state actor, the failure to show state action is not a “jurisdictional deficiency.” Monsky v. Moraghan, 127 F.3d 243, 245 (2d Cir. 1997). Rather, it is a merits issue “to be tested under Rule 12(b)(6).” Id. The district court therefore had subject matter jurisdiction over Adam’s section 1983 claims.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself provide a cause of action or prevent dismissal for failure to state one.

Schubert · filed 2026-03-30

Schubert fails to appreciate the difference between federal jurisdiction and a federal cause of action. ... Neither § 1331 nor the Constitution’s grant of Article III powers to the federal courts saves Schubert’s complaint from dismissal for failure to state a viable Bivens claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a claim when federal law supplies no private right of action for it.

Coakley · filed 2026-03-31

Because federal law provides no private right of action for this type of claim, Latham’s complaint does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to review agency actions; whether an agency action is final concerns the availability of a cause of action.

Wayne Land & Mineral Grp. LLC v. Del. River Basin Comm'n · filed 2017-11-20

The federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, provides federal courts with jurisdiction to review agency actions. Id. The "final agency action" requirement, instead, goes to whether there is a cause of action under the statute that provides for judicial review of a given agency determination.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over Title VII and FLSA claims even when the specific allegations under those statutes are unclear.

Rios v. Abc Imaging of Washington, Inc. · filed 2012-10-31

Although Rios’s specific allegations under each federal statute are unclear, the claims still arise under federal law and thus this court still has jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal employment provision cannot apply to the defendants.

Edwards v. Freeman · filed 2013-06-28

Accordingly, plaintiff’s employment related allegations do not present a federal question, and this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over an FLSA claim even when the employer invokes the motor carrier exemption, because that exemption concerns the merits rather than jurisdiction.

Cruz v. AAA Carting & Rubbish Removal, Inc. · filed 2015-07-16

Therefore, given that the vast majority of the courts in the Second Circuit have held that the issue of whether an employer falls into an FLSA exemption is a merits question and not a jurisdictional threshold, ... the Court denies Defendants’ Motion to dismiss, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges claims created by the ADEA, including a hostile work environment claim.

Paluso v. Perdue · filed 2019-06-12

Paluso’s Complaint, viewed holistically, adequately states grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction over his ADEA and hostile work environment claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an employee’s claim concerning potentially defamatory conduct when no federal constitutional or statutory protection applies.

Taha v. Werner Enterprises · filed 2019-08-21

Moreover, neither the United States Constitution, nor any federal statutes of which this Court is aware, protects an employee from what conceivably could be described as conduct defamatory in nature. Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 likewise is not possible.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a workplace injury claim based on OSHA when OSHA provides no employee cause of action and the claim raises no substantial federal question.

Saint Louis v. Central Transport · filed 2019-09-27

Thus, any alleged violation of OSHA cannot serve as a basis for federal question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to allege facts supporting a claim arising under federal law; allegations under regulations limited to federal employees do not establish federal-question jurisdiction without facts showing the defendants are federal employees or another federal basis.

Velasquez v. Grisham · filed 2019-12-03

Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants are federal employees. Nor are there any allegations that this case arises under any other federal laws. Plaintiff, therefore, has not met his burden of alleging facts that support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction when the complaint asserts a claim under a federal statute, including Title VII.

(PS) Sharma v. SITOA Board Members · filed 2020-02-05

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the district courts are vested with original jurisdiction over cases “arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Here, plaintiff’s complaint alleges that defendants terminated his membership with the Sacramento Independent Taxi Owners’ Association (“SITOA”) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2(a)(1), a claim predicated on a federal statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an employment suspension claim with no allegations connecting the suspension to a characteristic protected by Title VII.

Kaba v. Hope Home Care · filed 2023-08-26

Thus, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish § 1331 jurisdiction for this claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law employment claims when resolving them does not require interpreting a collective bargaining agreement.

Rowell v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2023-10-13

Therefore, because Rowell’s claims involve “rights conferred upon an employee by virtue of state law,” Dent, 902 F.3d at 1116, the resolution of which do not require the interpretation of the CBA, the Court does not have original federal question jurisdiction over the matter.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under the Montreal Convention.

Brown · filed 2025-10-30

A threshold issue is whether a personal injury claim arising under the Montreal Convention arises under federal law. It is well settled that a claim arising under the Montreal Convention has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint identifies no federal statute, treaty, or constitutional provision at issue.

Shoneye v. Wallace · filed 2018-05-02

Shoneye invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, but has not identified any specific federal statutes, federal treaties or provisions of the United States Constitution that are at issue in this case.

Section 1331 grants original federal-question jurisdiction to district courts, not the Court of International Trade.

Andrtiz Sundwig GMBH v. United States · filed 2018-06-20

To the extent Plaintiff continues to plead 28 U.S.C. § 1331, its allegation is improper. That provision grants the district courts with original subject matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court is one of limited jurisdiction by statute, and therefore Plaintiff’s invocation is erroneous.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff’s own cause of action to arise under federal law; alleging a treaty without a cause of action arising under it does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Jordan v. Philadelphia Media Network · filed 2018-09-25

The District Court correctly determined that it did not have federal question jurisdiction because Jordan has failed to allege any cause of action arising under a 1787 treaty.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction when a claim arises under a federal statute, the Constitution, or a treaty of the United States.

Knight-Bey v. Chatlelain · filed 2019-06-13

Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, commonly referred to as “federal question” jurisdiction, is proper when a plaintiff asserts a claim arising under a federal statute, the Constitution, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 requires a claim based on the Constitution, a federal statute, or a treaty to support federal-question jurisdiction.

Marces-Chavela v. God · filed 2019-09-20

She also appears to make a claim for loss of consortium, but cites no federal statute, rule, or constitutional provision to support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff’s claim arises under the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty of the United States.

Chen v. City of Bellevue · filed 2019-12-03

Plaintiff’s complaint does not assert a claim arising under the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty of the United States, and thus she has not invoked the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim based on federal law, a treaty, or the Constitution.

Mooney v. YouTube.com · filed 2020-01-08

However, he does not specifically identify any federal statutes, treaties or constitutional provisions which have allegedly been violated. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to show that the claim arises under a federal statute, treaty, or constitutional provision.

Jefferson v. Repko · filed 2020-03-02

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his claim against Repko arises under federal statute, federal treaty, or constitutional provision.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over foreign copyright claims when resolving ownership necessarily requires applying the Copyright Act’s work-for-hire doctrine.

Whyte Monkee Productions LLC v. Netflix, Inc. · filed 2024-04-16

Because this case raises a question of federal law, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a copyright infringement claim when a contractual license is raised as an affirmative defense.

Edgenet, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A. · filed 2011-09-02

The parties’ responses show that Edgenet’s claim arises under the copyright law and that Home Depot has invoked the 2006 contract’s offer of a perpetual license as an affirmative defense. This means that §1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a copyright claim when a contractual license is raised as an affirmative defense.

Edgenet, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2011-10-05

The parties’ responses show that Edgenet’s claim arises under the copyright law and that Home Depot has invoked the 2006 contract’s offer of a perpetual license as an affirmative defense. This means that § 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a copyright claim arising under federal law.

Doe I v. Ciolli · filed 2009-04-30

This Court has jurisdiction over Doe II’s copyright claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a requested declaration that a work is derivative requires interpretation of copyright law, even if copyright ownership also raises a contract question.

Schwartz v. Paramount Pictures Corporation · filed 2021-02-26

A straightforward application of Topolos demonstrates that jurisdiction exists here. Copyright ownership is not the sole issue in this case; rather, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Screenplay is a derivative work, which would require an interpretation of copyright law using the infringement standard.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a copyright claim even when the Copyright Act’s extraterritorial reach limits the relief available on that claim.

Stevo Design, Inc. v. SBR Marketing Ltd. · filed 2013-01-25

The court has the power to hear Plaintiffs’ case, but not the power to grant Plaintiffs relief.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction over copyright infringement actions without requiring copyright registration before suit.

Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick · filed 2010-03-02

But neither § 1331, which confers subject-matter jurisdiction over questions of federal law, nor § 1338(a), which is specific to copyright claims, conditions its jurisdictional grant on whether copyright holders have registered their works before suing for infringement.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a wrongful death claim that does not arise under the Constitution or federal law.

Grant v. New York Presbyterian · filed 2024-09-19

As an initial matter, this case does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s claims do not arise under the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a private property dispute that does not implicate federal law.

Acevedo-Rodriguez v. Rivera-Pagan · filed 2024-02-21

Consequently, his claims lack grounds for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Since there is no diversity between the parties, nor do the claims touch upon federal law, Plaintiff’s claims lack the requisite subject matter jurisdiction for this Court to adjudicate the instant dispute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s petition raises only state-law claims.

Integra Mission Critical LLC v. Cummings Electrical LP · filed 2024-02-15

The Petition raises no federal question, and Defendant recognizes that Plaintiff only alleged state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on citations to the Uniform Commercial Code, which is not a federal statute.

Tran v. 372nd Criminal District Court · filed 2024-01-12

Plaintiff's Complaint cites “UCC 3-603,” “UCC 3-311,” and “UCC 3-601” as the basis for this Court’s federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Compl. at 3. As argued by Defendant, this reference does not support the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's action: “the Uniform Commercial Code is not a federal statute.” Zella v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 14-3385, 2014 WL 12600058, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 29, 2014).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an ordinary defamation claim that does not arise under federal law.

Steffens v. Kaminsky · filed 2020-06-02

Accordingly, it does not appear that Steffens’ defamation claim arises under federal law to allow for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only state-law claims.

Nalls v. Countrywide Home Services, LLC · filed 2008-05-28

Furthermore, because Nalls’s complaint alleges only state law claims, there is no federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 allows original federal jurisdiction over actions arising under federal law; an entirely state-law complaint supplies no objectively reasonable basis for federal-question removal without a federal claim.

Taylor Chevrolet Inc. v. Medical Mutual Services LLC · filed 2008-12-22

Although a civil action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” may be brought originally in federal court, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Medical Mutual lacked an objectively reasonable basis for believing that Taylor’s entirely state law complaint raised a federal question.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over claims that arise under state law.

Cassell v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2009-10-13

Because his claims, if any, against these defendants arise under state law, the District Court properly held that it lacked federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Bryant v. Ally Financial · filed 2012-01-17

Second, even if we conclude that Bryant has not abandoned the issues, his claims still fail because: (1) there was no basis for § 1331 federal question jurisdiction because the pleadings show that all of his claims arose under state law; (2) there was no basis for § 1332 diversity jurisdiction as Bryant failed to sufficiently plead the citizenship of the parties; and (3) his claimed damages did not exceed $75,000.

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

Gallagher v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. · filed 2016-03-15

Because Gallagher’s Complaint contains only claims under the NJCFA, there is no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only state-law claims and no claim arising under federal law.

U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Jefferson · filed 2018-05-21

Plaintiff's complaint only alleges state-law claims and contains no claim arising under the Constitution, statutes, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is inadequately established by a removal notice when the complaint appears to assert only state-law causes of action.

Veach v. General RV Center · filed 2019-08-09

Additionally, it does not appear that the notice of removal adequately establishes federal question jurisdiction in that the complaint appears to assert only state law causes of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only state-law claims and no constitutional violation, even if it invokes § 1983.

Clark v. Johnson and Johnson Company · filed 2019-09-30

Liberally construing the Complaint as the Court must, the Complaint presents no basis for federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. While the Complaint invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the allegations do not speak to constitutional violations.

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

Dinh v. Victoria's Secret · filed 2019-10-04

Additionally, because Plaintiff brings only state law claims, there is no federal question at issue.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint can be read to assert federal claims but the plaintiff disclaims federal relief and pursues only state-law claims.

Stockton v. Branch Banking & Trust Company · filed 2019-10-10

Coupled with Plaintiff’s declarations that she does not wish to pursue any remedies she has under federal law, I cannot conclude that a federal claim is raised in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and therefore I must remand this case to the state court for prosecution of Plaintiff’s state law claims, as she intended.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; a complaint alleging only state law claims and no federal rights violation does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Browne v. Rowhena · filed 2019-10-10

As a federal district court, this court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or for claims where there is diversity of citizenship between the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Browne resides in the State of Indiana, and his filings suggest that the defendant is his former landlord, who also resides in the State of Indiana. Further, the complaint contains no indication that the defendant violated Browne’s rights under federal law. As a result, it appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and Browne cannot proceed on this complaint.

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

Sattizahn v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2019-10-17

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a private dispute solely because it concerns the proceeds of a separate federal case.

Vaughan v. Monsour · filed 2024-04-15

An FCA claim in a separate case cannot create original jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a quiet title action against private parties that arises under state law.

Cairnes v. Hemminger · filed 2024-04-30

Moreover, a quiet title action against private parties (as opposed to the federal government) is, by its very nature, a matter of state law. ... It does not present a federal question and, accordingly, does not confer subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising solely under state law.

CRISDON v. NORTH GATE II · filed 2025-10-07

Simply stated, this Court is not the correct court for Plaintiff to pursue these claims against these Defendants. Plaintiff's reasons for suing these Defendants all arise under state law and do not allege violations of federal law or the Constitution.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only state-law tort claims.

Central Transport LLC v. Hernandez · filed 2025-10-07

The Sesay complaint asserts state-law tort claims only, so we lack federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only state-law tort claims.

Sesay v. Hernandez · filed 2025-10-07

The Sesay complaint asserts state-law tort claims only, so we lack federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents only state law claims and no federal claim on its face.

IVEY · filed 2025-10-10

Ivey asserts that “the Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant [to] 28 U.S.C. 1331” (Compl. ¶ 2), however no federal claim is presented on the face of the Complaint.

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

Burgess · filed 2025-10-15

Therein, Plaintiff asserted only state law claims, so no federal question jurisdiction existed, and diversity of citizenship was lacking because both Plaintiff and Defendant Braziel are citizens of Georgia.

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

D'Amario v. Globe Photos · filed 2025-10-22

Plaintiff asserted claims appear to include a breach of contract and conversion of personal property—both of which are claims arising under state law. Plaintiff asserts no claim arising under federal law or the U.S. Constitution. Thus, if there is subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, such jurisdiction would have to arise under diversity of citizenship.

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

Early · filed 2025-10-22

These claims are all state law causes of action, and none present a federal question which the Court has jurisdiction to hear.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over claims that do not arise under federal law.

HARTLEY · filed 2025-10-23

Nor is there an independent jurisdictional basis for the claims to be in this Court. They do not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; an amended complaint alleging only state-law claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Yoon · filed 2026-01-13

The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint no longer alleges claims that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, as required for federal question jurisdiction. Because the Court finds that no factual basis for subject matter jurisdiction is apparent from Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 6], the Court will remand this action to the state court for further proceedings.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law contract and tort claims that allege no federal cause of action or violation of federal law.

Jayme v. MCI Corp · filed 2008-08-12

Jayme’s complaint fails to allege a federal cause of action in either contract or tort, and, therefore, is not one arising under the laws of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a contract claim that necessarily raises a disputed, substantial federal issue appropriate for a federal forum.

County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc. · filed 2008-08-27

Santa Clara seeks enforcement of an obligation created by a nationwide federal contract whose terms are mandated by federal statute and which must be interpreted according to federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an adversary proceeding involving only state-law breach-of-contract claims.

Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v. Magnetek, Inc. (In Re Fruit of the Loom, Inc.) · filed 2009-07-15

Fifth, this Court’s jurisdictional basis rests solely upon 28 U.S.C. § 1334. There is no federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and there is no diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as both Plaintiffs and Magnetek are Delaware corporations.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a breach-of-contract claim when the complaint alleges no basis in the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty.

Seagate Logistics, Inc. v. Angel Kiss, Inc. · filed 2010-03-26

Without any allegation in the complaint based on the Constitution, or applicable federal law or treaty, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs breach of contract claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; allegations arising under District of Columbia employment or contract law do not establish that jurisdiction.

Tucker v. Dcps Division of Transportation · filed 2010-05-04

It has jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The allegations in the complaint, however, do not appear to arise under federal law, but instead under District of Columbia employment or contract law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only a breach of contract claim.

Curtis Northington, Jr. v. St. Louis County Government · filed 2010-07-06

The complaint does not raise a federal question claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a breach-of-contract claim merely because the plaintiff asserts that the dispute involves a federal crime.

Jones v. Beaver · filed 2012-04-26

Neither the complaint nor the plaintiffs response to the defendants' motion to dismiss establishes federal question jurisdiction. The plaintiff s assertion that this action "involv[es] a federal crime" which "can be litigated in federal court," Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. #25] at 1, simply does not suffice.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim merely because the defendant raises a federal regulatory defense.

Campbell v. Hampton Roads Bankshares, Inc. · filed 2013-02-19

This fact pattern runs headlong into the well-established rule that a defense cannot serve as the basis for removal.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over a state law attorney fee contract dispute that presents no federal question.

Community Bank of NV v. · filed 2018-12-20

The District Court lacked original jurisdiction over the state law breach of contract claim because it involves neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint centered on breach of contract when no federal question exists.

Ledcor Construction Inc. v. Heritage Construction Company Inc. · filed 2019-08-27

Plaintiff’s complaint centers on a breach of contract cause of action and no federal question exists.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state law breach of insurance contract claim that does not arise under federal law.

Simpson, Jr. v. To Good 2 Go Insurance · filed 2019-10-09

Turning first to Simpson’s state law breach of insurance contract claims, the complaint does not allege any “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. §1331, giving rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a contract claim that requires interpretation of federal statutes and regulations.

Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. United States · filed 1995-04-14

SAFECO correctly argues that even if its claim is essentially contractual, the questions of Pfeifle's authority to enter into a binding settlement clearly involve the interpretation of federal statutes and regulations. Similarly, the entire suit arises against the backdrop of federal procurement regulations and the Miller Act. As a result, the district court had federal question jurisdiction under Sec. 1331.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over an FCA claim depends on whether the defendant is a person under the FCA.

United States Ex Rel. Sikkenga v. Blueshield · filed 2006-12-05

Because the FCA imposes liability for “[a]ny person who – (1) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Government . . . a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval,” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) (emphasis added), subject matter jurisdiction for an FCA claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 depends on the claim being made against a person as that term is interpreted under the FCA.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over Privacy Act claims.

De La Cruz-Jimenez v. U.S. Department of Justice · filed 2008-07-24

This Court has original jurisdiction over Privacy Act claims pursuant to the federal question provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the Privacy Act authorizes “[a]n action to enforce any liability created under this section [to] be brought [inter alia] in the District of Columbia.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(5). The Court therefore denies defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(3).

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over suits against federal agencies seeking to enforce the APA.

Ali v. Frazier · filed 2008-09-11

It is black-letter law that federal courts have jurisdiction under § 1331 over suits against agencies seeking to enforce provisions of the APA.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims enforcing the CNMI's local territorial income tax rebate provisions merely because its tax code mirrors federal tax law.

Armstrong v. Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands · filed 2009-08-07

In sum, we conclude that because the NMTIT is a local, territorial income tax code, and because Armstrong’s NMTIT claims seek to enforce the additional rebate provisions enacted pursuant to Covenant section 602, Armstrong’s NMTIT claims were not subject to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of NEPA and the APA, even when the existence of an enforceable cause of action is disputed.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Department of State · filed 2009-09-29

Although defendants couch their motion primarily as a jurisdictional challenge under Rule 12(b)(1), the more appropriate procedural vehicle is Rule 12(b)(6). The NRDC claims a violation of NEPA and the APA, both of which raise a federal question covered by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim alleging a violation of constitutional rights.

Matthews v. District of Columbia · filed 2009-12-30

A district court has federal jurisdiction over all “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that a defendant violated his constitutional rights is a claim arising under the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a landlord-tenant claim pleaded as a § 1983 claim against a private entity that did not act under color of law.

Amiri v. Gelman Management Company · filed 2012-07-31

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitut laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... rights claim against a private entity, and thus fails to present a federal question under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because this provision applies only to "person[ s] who [act], under color of any statute, ... ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia.’

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

Marshall v. PNC Bank, N.A. (In re Marshall) · filed 2012-09-24

The FDCPA Claim arises under a federal statute, which falls directly within the district court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over an ERISA declaratory judgment claim even if the claim falls outside the remedies available to the claimant under ERISA.

Board of Trustees of the Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund v. Fralick · filed 2015-02-18

Mrs. Fralick argues, however, that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Board’s ERISA claim falls outside the remedies provided to it in § 1132(a). She argues that the Board, an ERISA fiduciary, has brought a claim for benefits, and only a beneficiary may make such a claim under § 1132(a)(1)(B). This argument, however, does not bear on whether we have subject matter jurisdiction over the Board’s claim. See ACS Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, 723 F.3d 518, 523 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc). We conclude that the district court correctly held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this declaratory judgment claim under its federal question power in 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous federal statutory claim even when the claim may fail on the merits.

Stem v. Gomez · filed 2016-02-08

Stem stated a claim for relief under a federal statute. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It was not frivolous, and the Bell exceptions are inapplicable. The district court erred in dismissing Stem’s claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a government contract claim solely because federal common law governs the contract when the Tucker Act assigns exclusive jurisdiction elsewhere.

Associated Mortgage Bankers, Inc. v. Castro · filed 2017-11-15

And despite the arguments presented by plaintiff on its motion to reconsider, the Court still finds § 1331 to be an inadequate basis for exercising jurisdiction. ... Plaintiff is correct that federal common law also governs contracts between HUD and plaintiff. But finding subject matter jurisdiction on this basis alone would eviscerate the Tucker Act’s grant of exclusive jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a claim alleging an FLSA violation even when the defendant disputes whether the FLSA protects the plaintiff.

Kenney v. Helix TCS, Inc. · filed 2018-01-05

Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated a federal statute-the FLSA-and this Court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction (and specifically, federal question jurisdiction) over the case.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over APA claims alleging arbitrary and capricious agency action even without a separate statutory violation.

Seeger v. United States Department of Defense · filed 2018-03-30

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that their allegations establish federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331, even absent allegations of a non-APA statutory violation.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint stating a § 1983 claim for deprivation of constitutional rights.

POLEON v. GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS · filed 2018-08-08

Clearly, Poleon states a § 1983 cause of action for deprivation of his constitutional rights. Therefore, we have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an FLSA claim even if the plaintiff fails to establish FLSA employee coverage, which is an element of the claim.

Gao v. ABC Corp. · filed 2019-08-20

Though employee coverage is an essential element of an FLSA claim, federal courts have consistently held that a plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate coverage under the statute does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction, even if jurisdiction is premised on the FLSA claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over § 1983 claims because they raise questions of federal law.

Federman v. Town of Lorraine · filed 2019-11-25

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over Section 1983 claims because they raise questions of federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Kohl Indus. Park Co. v. Rockland Cty., 710 F.2d 895, 899 (2d Cir. 1983).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim, with state action treated as an element of the claim rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite.

Matthews v. Kofol · filed 2020-02-24

But “[o]rdinarily, § 1983 plaintiffs assert federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the state action requirement is treated only as an element of the claim.” Id. at 768 (citation omitted). That is the case here, and because jurisdiction clearly exists under § 1331, the magistrate judge’s findings with respect to § 1343 are unnecessary.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a liberally construed complaint alleges discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.

Glover v. HPC - Eight · filed 2022-04-04

Reading the allegations of the Amended Complaint liberally, it appears that plaintiff attempts to assert a claim for discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act. See 42 U.S.C. §3604(a)-(b). At this stage, plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not make a conditions-of-confinement claim appropriate in a § 2241 habeas action merely because the court has jurisdiction over both types of claim.

Davis (ID 06598) v. Schnurr · filed 2023-03-20

To the extent that Petitioner intends to assert that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 gives the Court jurisdiction over—and thus makes appropriate—a conditions-of-confinement claim raised in a federal habeas action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (see Doc. 10, p. 3), he is incorrect. Jurisdiction over two types of claims, such as habeas claims and civil rights claims, does not necessarily mean that both types of claim may be brought in a single lawsuit.

Section 1331(a)'s jurisdiction over specified civil actions is not the proper basis for a state prisoner's habeas petition, which is instead construed under § 2241.

Hairston v. Pitchess · filed 1971-02-18(a)

By his application and Points and Authorities submitted in support thereof, petitioner invokes jurisdiction ... under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (which grants jurisdiction to this court in specified civil actions), and alleges his is a claim arising under the laws and Constitution of the United States. The petition will be deemed brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) and (d) for liberal construction is appropriate.

Section 1331 cannot authorize removal of a state criminal prosecution because its grant is limited to civil actions.

The People of the State of Michigan, City of Bronson v. Martin · filed 1990-02-05

Removal was not proper under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, because the proceeding Martin sought to remove was criminal, not civil, in nature.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction over claims under § 2241 because every such claim entails a federal question.

Moore, Frank v. Olson, Keith E. · filed 2004-05-17

Subject-matter jurisdiction, however, is supplied by 28 U.S.C. §1331, as any claim under §2241 entails a federal question.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts original jurisdiction over a state criminal bond revocation proceeding because it is not a civil action.

State of Texas v. Tello · filed 2007-04-17

Removal jurisdiction was precluded because no federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the state bond revocation proceeding. See PCI Transp., Inc. v. Fort Worth & Western R. Co., 418 F.3d 535, 543 (5th Cir. 2005). In addition, Tello’s bond proceeding is not a civil action for removal purposes but remains incidental to and inseparable from his state criminal case. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b); Jeter v. State, 26 S.W. 49, 49-50 (Tex. 1894).

Section 1331 gives a district court subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a federal habeas corpus petition.

Merritte v. Miles · filed 2019-01-28

Moreover, Judge Williams had jurisdiction to adjudicate Merritte’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over state bar disciplinary proceedings because they are quasi-criminal rather than civil actions.

Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers v. Belanger · filed 2020-04-10

As such, the instant matter is not properly removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a “civil action” and this court does not have jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court subject-matter jurisdiction over a habeas petition alleging a violation of federal law, even when the petition’s cognizability in habeas remains unresolved.

Bean v. Matteucci · filed 2021-01-20

A district court has subject-matter jurisdiction to consider a habeas petition alleging a violation of federal law under federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction for civil actions, so it does not authorize removal of a state criminal prosecution.

Texeira v. State of Hawaii · filed 2021-01-26

Section 1331 applies to civil actions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”).

Section 1331 does not let a petitioner bypass § 2244’s limits on successive habeas petitions.

Ciavone v. Whitmer · filed 2025-01-15

The fact that Petitioner filed his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2241 does not permit him to circumvent the limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 on filing successive habeas petitions.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over civil actions and does not authorize removal of state criminal actions.

Dalton v. Indiana State of · filed 2025-05-28

28 U.S.C. § 1331 is the statute for federal question jurisdiction of “civil actions”; it is not a vehicle for removal of state criminal actions.

Section 1331 permits a district court to hear a habeas petitioner’s constitutional claims and consider injunctive relief independently of the habeas petition.

Suong · filed 2025-12-23

Where habeas petitioners raise Due Process claims and have also invoked the Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court has “the authority both to entertain [Petitioner’s] constitutional challenges and to grant injunctive relief in response to them,” “irrespective of the accompanying habeas petition.” Roman, 977 F.3d at 941–42.

Section 1331 provides no subject matter jurisdiction when all federal claims have been dismissed and no other jurisdictional basis is invoked.

Mirkooshesh v. Elie · filed 2023-03-26

Having dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ federal claims, I now lack subject matter jurisdiction. See Compl. ¶ 2 (invoking federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331).

Section 1331 supplies no jurisdiction after all claims grounded in federal law have been dismissed.

Michelin v. Jenkins · filed 1989-01-06

In view of the dismissal of plaintiff's claims grounded in federal law, this Court does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Further diversity jurisdiction is not available in this case.