28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 no longer supplies jurisdiction after the court enters judgment against the only federal claim, leaving only state-law claims.

Fonte v. Collins · filed 1989-05-16

In the resulting absence of a federal claim, Plaintiff’s basis for federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331 fails.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction to federal district courts and does not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims.

Humphrey v. United States · filed 2002-05-30

Section 1331 provides that the federal district courts, not this Court, shall have original jurisdiction over all civil actions involving a federal question.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction on federal district courts, but not on the Court of Federal Claims.

McNabb v. United States · filed 2002-12-10

Plaintiffs cite, for example, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction in federal district court), 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (providing for original jurisdiction in federal district court) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 (providing for declaratory judgments in federal district court). These statutes do not provide jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts federal-question jurisdiction but does not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims.

Hoffman v. United States · filed 2003-07-11

Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2000) (federal question jurisdiction in federal district court) ... These statutes, however, do not provide jurisdiction in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim seeking to alter a rate set in a federally filed telecommunications tariff.

Bryan v. BellSouth Communications Inc · filed 2004-07-28

Because the amount of the FUSC is determinatively set forth in BellSouth’s tariff, which carries the force of federal law, an action seeking to alter that rate presents a federal question.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction when a complaint pleads the elements of federal statutory claims, even if those claims may fail on the merits.

Cortigiano v. Oceanview Manor Home for Adults · filed 2005-04-04

Defendants’ arguments are unpersuasive because if they are correct, then plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of law, and can be disposed of on a pre-trial motion. Defendants had the option to file a dispositive motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) to dismiss those claims in lieu of filing an answer, but did not avail themselves of this option. The complaint sets forth the elements for a claim under both the Rehabilitation Act and ADA, which confers subject matter jurisdiction on this Court.

Section 1331 does not give the Court of Federal Claims general federal-question jurisdiction.

Carroll v. United States · filed 2005-07-29

We have no general federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor the right generally to review final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (2000) (“APA”).

Section 1331 gives general federal-question jurisdiction to district courts, not the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Tchakarski v. United States · filed 2005-10-31

The United States Court of Federal Claims does not have authority to exercise general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not give the Court of Federal Claims general federal-question jurisdiction to review agency action.

Lawrence v. United States · filed 2006-02-01

To the extent this claim seeks judicial review of an agency action, GSA’s denial of a waiver, it is not within this Court’s jurisdiction. This court has “no general federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor the right generally to review final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706.”

Section 1331 does not provide the money damages needed to support jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims.

Howard-Pinson v. United States · filed 2006-12-18

Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361, 2201 and 2241 to claim that this Court has jurisdiction over his complaint. None of these sections provide for money damages, without which this Court lacks authority to hear his claim.

Section 1331 does not give the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction because that court is not a district court.

White v. United States · filed 2011-12-08

This Court is not a "district court” under § 1331, and therefore § 1331 is not applicable here.

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

Cox v. United States · filed 2012-06-22

They also allege violations of 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (“Civil damages for certain unauthorized collection actions”), 26 U.S.C. § 7604 (“Enforcement of summons”), 28 U.S.C. § 754 (“Receivers of property in different districts”), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“Federal question”), 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (“Civil rights and elective franchise”), 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (“Venue generally”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Civil action for deprivation of rights”). However, the Court of Federal Claims is not a district court. ... Thus, these statutes and regulations do not provide for jurisdiction in this court.

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

Halim v. United States · filed 2012-09-24

The amended Complaint’s reliance on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a source of this court’s jurisdiction is in error.

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

Mark Joseph Hills Tanzer v. United States · filed 2013-05-15

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction on “district courts,” not this Court.

Section 1331 does not provide a basis for jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims over federal employees’ FLSA claims.

Barry v. United States · filed 2013-12-04

The government correctly notes that most of the statutes that plaintiffs do cite as bases for jurisdiction are inappropriate, including 28 U.S.C § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1337, and 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2).

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

Ganaway v. United States · filed 2014-02-10

Sections 1331, 1343, 2201, and 2202 provide jurisdiction in federal district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction to district courts but does not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims.

Ross v. United States · filed 2015-07-09

In addition, the statute governing federal question jurisdiction does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to entertain plaintiffs complaint. The federal question statute states, “[t]he 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.

Section 1331 grants federal district courts original jurisdiction over federal-question civil actions, but does not give the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over them.

Ajamian v. United States · filed 2015-07-14

Ajamian references 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in his pleadings as the possible bases for his claims, but United States dis- trict courts have original jurisdiction over claims arising under those statutes. ... it does not have jurisdiction to consider Ajamian’s claims under those statutes.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction to district courts, but does not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims or mandate monetary relief.

Bowles v. United States · filed 2015-07-31

The provision does not confer jurisdiction upon our court, see Faulkner v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 54, 55 (Fed. Cl. 1999), nor does it mandate the payment of money for its alleged violation. Section 1331 cannot be used to establish our jurisdiction over Mr. Bowles' s case.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over federal constitutional and statutory claims even when a defendant argues that Title VII forecloses relief on those claims.

Holly v. Jewell · filed 2016-07-11

Although this dispute is styled as a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the more appropriate analysis is under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This case unequivocally raises federal questions which confer subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In this motion, Defendant essentially argues that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief under RFRA or the First Amendment because Title VII prevents him from doing so.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction to district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims, and does not mandate money damages.

Norington v. United States · filed 2016-08-23

As a basis for jurisdiction, plaintiff cites to three cases from this court, as well as multiple provisions of the United States Code: 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), 1367(a) 2071(a), 2071 (c), 2503(b), 2521(a); 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Further, none of the statutory provisions cited by plaintiff are money- mandating. The provisions cited under Title 28 of the United States Code deal with the jurisdiction of a district court (which does not include the Court of Federal Claims) and the procedural authority of this court-none of which are money mandating provisions.

Section 1331 governs federal district court jurisdiction and does not give the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction or create a right to money damages.

Hephzibah v. United States · filed 2016-08-25

Plaintiff also argues that 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1391 create a right to sue for money damages. Compl. at 40. But these statutes prescribe jurisdictional and venue rules for the federal district courts. Although this court is a federal court, it is not a federal district court. See Warren v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 507, 512 (2012). Thus, these statutes have nothing to do with our court's jurisdiction over any matter, much less Ms. Hephzibah's claims.

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

Jordan v. United States · filed 2016-08-25

Further, to the extent that plaintiff cites the statute as a basis for jurisdiction, this court "does not have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331," Faulkner v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 54, 55 (1999), because it is not a district court, Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (per curiam).

Section 1331 does not give district courts jurisdiction over just-compensation claims against the United States exceeding $10,000 when the Tucker Act places those claims exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims.

Brott v. United States · filed 2017-05-31

To read § 1331’s broad grant of subject matter jurisdiction as controlling over the Little Tucker Act’s specific and limited grant of jurisdiction, as the landowners do, violates this tenet of statutory interpretation. Therefore, the district court was correct to find that the Court of Federal Claims is the exclusive forum for the landowners’ compensation claims and that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review the landowners’ claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when a plaintiff pleads a colorable claim arising under federal law.

Schmidt v. Waterstone Bank SSB · filed 2019-02-26

Because Schmidt “properly pleaded a colorable claim arising under a law of the United States, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”

Section 1331 does not give the Court of Federal Claims federal-question jurisdiction.

Kandakai v. United States · filed 2019-03-25

Therefore, Ms. Kandakai cannot use 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to establish jurisdiction in this court.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging a Lanham Act violation even if the complaint may fail to plead an element of that claim.

Steeped, Inc. v. Nuzee, Inc. · filed 2019-11-22

Whether Plaintiff has met its burden to plead the elements of 15 U.S.C. § 1114 does not affect whether the Court has the power to resolve this case. Instead, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case via federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff alleges a Lanham Act violation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a purported § 1983 claim when the complaint alleges no governmental action by the defendant.

Simmons v. Webb · filed 2020-01-16

Under 28 U.S.C. §1331, federal question jurisdiction exists over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Plaintiff submitted his complaint on a form typically used to allege violations of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983. However, it does not appear that the sole individual Defendant, identified as the Executive Director of the Northern Kentucky Homeless Cold Shelter, is employed by the State of Ohio or other governmental entity, which would give rise to a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Section 1331 supplies original federal-question jurisdiction, but withdrawal of the federal claims may leave a removed case without federal subject matter jurisdiction and permit remand.

ELANSARI v. RAMIREZ · filed 2021-02-25

When federal claims asserted in a complaint are withdrawn by a plaintiff, remand to state court is appropriate even though a defendant removed the “civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction” to federal court, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), and the federal court has original jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In a situation where a plaintiff withdraws his federal claims and agrees only to pursue state law claims, the federal court may not have subject matter jurisdiction over the action and the case may be remanded to state court.

Section 1331 does not provide independent federal-question jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims once the sole federal claim is resolved.

Masdea v. Scholz · filed 1990-08-13

The Lanham Act claim is the only federal law claim in the complaint, and, without it, no federal question jurisdiction exists to hear this case.

A land dispute does not arise under federal law for purposes of § 1331 merely because title traces to a United States patent.

Simpson v. Utah · filed 1966-08-30(a)

No federal jurisdiction is made to appear for a controversy over lands is not recognizable under section 1331 simply because title can be traced to a patent issued by the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a patent-title dispute absent a discrete federal question or duty arising under federal law.

Mead Corporation and Mead Digital Systems, Inc. v. United States of America · filed 1981-05-29

Absent a discrete federal question or a duty arising under federal law, these provisions do not provide for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a trust-land sale dispute merely because the Secretary of the Interior must approve the sale.

Kumar v. Schildt · filed 2022-09-19

As in K2 America, the “mere fact that the Secretary of the Interior must approve” the sale of trust lands does not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a property claim merely because the asserted ownership traces to a federal land patent.

Lee v. ARKLA Chemical Corp. · filed 2023-02-23

However, courts have universally held that a federal land patent is an insufficient basis for federal jurisdiction. ... Thus, Plaintiff has not shown that federal question jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a land-title claim merely because title derives from a federal patent.

James Yocum, Jr. v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc · filed 2024-02-08

It is a settled principle that a jurisdictional federal question is not raised merely because title to land devolves from a federal patent, and thus, the district court lacked federal question jurisdiction over his claim.

Federal land patents do not provide a basis for federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Chuck and Ann Fina Family Revocable Trust Dated August 30, 1996 v. Boyle · filed 2025-06-13

But federal land patents do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a dispute involves a federal land patent.

Boyle v. United States · filed 2025-08-22

Federal land patents do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction merely because a land dispute involves a federal land patent.

Chuck and Ann Fina Family Revocable Trust Dated August 30, 1996 v. Boyle · filed 2025-06-25

However, as explained in the Court’s previous order, federal land ... patents do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a presently justiciable controversy and does not authorize a premature pre-induction challenge to a draft board order.

Feldman v. Local Board No. 22 of the Selective Service System · filed 1964-09-12

Wholly apart from the question as to whether this action involves more than $10,000, a question which is debatable, the section is inapplicable in any event because the complaint does not allege a presently justiciable controversy. The presence of such a controversy is an essential prerequisite to jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over alleged violations of federal constitutional and statutory rights unless another federal statute creates an exception.

Wolff v. Selective Service Local Board No. 16 · filed 1967-01-30

Appellants have invoked the general federal question jurisdiction of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As the controversy involves the alleged violation of rights arising out of the Federal Constitution and federal statutes, appellants’ view must be correct unless some federal statute other than Section 1331 makes an exception in matters affecting the administration of the Selective Service Act.

A specific congressional restriction on preinduction draft-board review withdraws jurisdiction that otherwise could exist under § 1331.

Breen v. SELECTIVE SERVICE LOCAL BD. NO. 16, BRIDGEPORT, CONN. · filed 1968-03-13

Nevertheless, this action does arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States and as such 28 U.S.C. § 1331 would generally confer jurisdiction if the matter in controversy exceeded the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs. ... Assuming the requisite jurisdictional amount has been sufficiently demonstrated, the Court is convinced that § 8(c) of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967, amending Section 10(b) (3) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act (50 App. U.S.C. § 460(b) (3)), specifically deprives this Court of whatever jurisdiction it might otherwise have over this action.

A registrant allowed to seek preinduction review under an exception to the Selective Service Act's review bar must still satisfy § 1331's jurisdictional requirements.

Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 11 · filed 1969-02-24

We accordingly reverse the judgment and remand the case to the District Court where petitioner must have the opportunity to prove the facts alleged and also to demonstrate that he meets the jurisdictional requirements of 28 U. S. C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not authorize a federal court to enjoin a nonparty.

Trees v. Service Employees International Union Local 503 · filed 2021-11-09

in which she asserts that she relies on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1983. These statutes, however, do not provide authority to enjoin a nonparty.

For actions consolidated for all purposes, § 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is assessed from the combined complaints, and federal statutory claims in one establish jurisdiction over the consolidated case.

Estate of Oral W. Nunis, Sr. v. City of Chula Vista · filed 2021-11-19

Applying the well-pleaded complaint rule, the Court finds that it has federal-question jurisdiction over this case because the consolidated action contains four claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction when federal warranty claims appear on the face of the complaint, even if most claims arise under state law.

Hopkins v. Fife RV & Auto Center · filed 2016-08-22

Federal question jurisdiction is proper when civil actions arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... This Court has original jurisdiction over the claims brought under the MMWA, and the removal was proper.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint asserts federal claims, even if it also asserts state-law claims.

Yadav v. Frost Bank · filed 2020-02-25

Thus, under the well-pleaded complaint rule, Yadav’s case arises under federal law, regardless of whether his Petition also includes claims that arise under state law.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction when a complaint expressly seeks relief for a violation of federal law, even if it also invokes state law.

Campbell Ex Rel. Robinson v. Cottage Grove Nursing Home, L.P. · filed 2004-11-23

In the court’s opinion, this claim arises under federal law and supports defendants’ assertion of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that asserts violations of federal statutes, even when it also cites state statutes.

Byrd v. Cook · filed 2021-05-19

The fact that Plaintiff also cites numerous state statutes that he maintains Defendants violated does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a pro se complaint is fairly read to assert a federal claim, even if it cites only state law.

MASSAQUOI · filed 2026-02-04

Similarly, Massaquoi’s allegations, and his invocation of Section 1331, are “fairly construed” as raising a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the federal minimum wage law.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a pro se complaint, liberally construed, asserts an FDCPA claim without naming the Act in the complaint.

Wilkening v. Santander Consumer USA · filed 2023-02-06

I conclude there is subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1331. ... The bottom line is that, in balancing the need to liberally construe the Wilkenings’ Complaint against the need to resolve doubts in favor of remand, I conclude that the Wilkenings do enough to assert an FDCPA claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law ejectment action.

LE v. BERENATO · filed 2021-12-07

Remand is required here as the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this ejectment action. Berenato’s Notice of Removal alleges that this Court may exercise federal question jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to § 1331. (ECF No. 2 at 1-5, 7, 12.) Berenato is incorrect. As recognized by a non-precedential panel of the Third Circuit, an “ejectment action . . . is governed by state law, . . . does not present a federal question[,]” and therefore “belongs back in state court.” See Lott v. Duffy, 579 F. App’x 87, 89-90 (3d Cir. 2014). Accordingly, there is no basis for the Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over foreclosure actions brought under state law.

Nolan v. Judge Bright · filed 2022-03-10

Foreclosure actions brought under state law do not give rise to federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a foreclosure complaint governed solely by state law.

Ward v. Amaya · filed 2023-08-01

Amaya solely invokes federal question jurisdiction. ECF No. 1-1. The matter, however, is a straightforward foreclosure action governed solely by state law. ECF No. 2; see also Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. § 7-105.1 & Md. Rule 14-207. Thus, although Amaya may wish to proceed in this Court, nothing in the Complaint makes such jurisdiction plausible.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state foreclosure actions.

Lakeview Loan Care Services, LLC v. Hollis · filed 2024-01-12

State foreclosure actions do not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a foreclosure action brought under state law.

Trustee Service of Carolina LLC v. Gittens · filed 2024-04-09

Regardless, the Court notes that foreclosure actions brought under state law, such as the one here brought under Chapter 45, Article 2A, of the North Carolina General Statutes, N.C.G.S. § 45-21.1, et seg., do not create federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law eviction action.

UDR Marina Pointe LLC v. Montgomery · filed 2025-07-22

However, an action for eviction does not raise a question “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law foreclosure action when the plaintiff’s complaint presents no federal question.

Nguyen v. Dunbar · filed 2025-08-06

Thus, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this state foreclosure action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an action arising under state law.

Campbell v. Campbell · filed 2025-09-02

Nor is there federal question jurisdiction because the action arises under state, not federal, law.

Section 1331 generally does not require a plaintiff to show irreparable harm to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

Cochran v. SEC · filed 2021-12-13

Further, although the threat of irreparable harm may justify pre-enforcement judicial review under principles of equity, see Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 145–48 (1908), irreparable harm is not ordinarily required to invoke a district court’s general § 1331 federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when a non-ADA theory of liability makes a federal question unnecessary.

Thurston v. Spectrum Wine Auctions, LLC · filed 2019-12-04

Therefore, where a plaintiff pursues a non-ADA theory of liability—even if she pursues a concurrent theory premised on an ADA violation—no federal question is a necessary element of her Unruh Act claim, and federal jurisdiction does not attach.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an Unruh Civil Rights Act damages claim merely because the state-law claim incorporates an ADA violation as an element.

Rodriguez v. Capri Urban Baldwin LLC · filed 2020-07-20

Plaintiff's Complaint contains a single citation to the ADA and states, “[b]y violating 42 U.S.C. § 12182 and 28 C.F.R. § 36.304, Defendants violated Civil Code section 51.” (Removal at Ex. A at 97.) But the Ninth Circuit has clearly rejected the position that a “state-law claim ‘arises under’ federal law because the Unruh Civil Rights Act incorporates an ADA violation as an element.” See Kohler v. Southland Foods, Inc., 459 F. App’x 617, 618-19 (9th Cir. 2011). Without more, Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden in showing that federal question jurisdiction exists here.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim merely because it incorporates the ADA when the complaint raises no significant federal issue.

Dominick Martin v. Aspen Skiing Company · filed 2020-10-30

As such, Plaintiffs’ complaint does not “implicate significant federal issues,” and it should be remanded.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim merely because the claim relies in part on ADA violations.

Rodriguez v. Genesco, Inc. · filed 2021-04-26

In short, given that any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remanding the action to state court, see Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566, the court is not persuaded, under the circumstances here, that defendant has met its burden. Therefore, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law Unruh Act claim merely because an ADA violation supplies an element of that claim.

Rutherford v. Green Golf, Inc. · filed 2021-08-23

Rather than alleging a claim under the American’s with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Complaint instead uses the alleged violations of the ADA as an element of Plainitff's Unruh Act claim. Plaintiff has made no claim under the ADA. Plaintiff's sole claim arises exclusively under California law, not federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim premised on an ADA violation merely because the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and does not allege intentional discrimination.

Arroyo v. Capitol Regency, LLC · filed 2021-08-24

Here, this court is not convinced federal question jurisdiction exists simply because Arroyo seeks injunctive relief and does not allege intentional discrimination.

Section 1331 requires only one basis for federal-question jurisdiction; additional statutory bases are unnecessary.

Smith v. Nash · filed 2022-02-02

Because a single basis for federal-question jurisdiction is sufficient,59 additional bases—such as the other statutes Smith cites in his motion—are unnecessary.

When abstention is required for a civil-rights claim, the court must also abstain from exercising Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction over the related claims.

South Cutler Bay, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla. · filed 1972-10-27

It goes without saying, of course, that where we are compelled to abstain from exercising our civil rights jurisdiction, we must also abstain from exercising our federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A federal court ordinarily must exercise Section 1331 jurisdiction, but exceptional circumstances may justify abstention in favor of a comprehensive parallel state proceeding.

DeVona v. City of Providence Through Napolitano · filed 1987-02-04

There, the Supreme Court indicated that a district court is under “a virtually unflagging obligation” to exercise federal question jurisdiction unless exceptional circumstances are present. ... Having balanced the detrimental effects arising from the greater comprehensiveness of the state proceeding and the repetitious nature of plaintiff’s suit against the consideration that plaintiff’s case does involve issues of federal law, this Court concludes that the former outweigh the latter. Therefore, all the claims brought by plaintiff under federal question jurisdiction should be dismissed.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law wrongful discharge claim that does not require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement and is not preempted by the LMRA.

Berreth v. Keystone Electrical Manufacturing Co. · filed 2003-07-01

On this record, the Court must find neither Berreth’s claim of wrongful discharge nor Keystone’s affirmative defenses require interpretation of the CBA; therefore, the claim is not preempted by the LMRA. The Court lacks both federal question and diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

When a removing defendant establishes § 1331 jurisdiction, it need not amend its removal notice to address diversity-jurisdiction factors.

Johnson v. Wag Acquisition Group LLC · filed 2025-04-02

But, because Wag has alleged a basis for subject matter jurisdiction under Section 1331, Wag need not amend its notice of removal to address the Coury factors.

Section 1331 requires a federal question apparent from the complaint; invoking it without allegations supporting a federal claim does not establish jurisdiction.

Greene v. Global Care Medical Group · filed 2025-04-24

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

Section 1331 subject-matter jurisdiction over constitutional claims at the time of judgment can prevent dismissal for an initial defect in removal.

Smith v. City of Picayune, Carle Cooper and Charles M. Hubbs, and Usa, Farmers Home Administration, Intervenor- · filed 1986-07-28

Since, at the time of judgment in this case, the district court did have subject matter jurisdiction of the case based on Smith’s constitutional claims ... and the presence of the FmHA as an intervenor-defendant, ... we will not now dismiss the suit on the basis of the improperiety of removal at the time it occurred.

Section 1331 does not itself authorize removal of a case from state court.

Ozim v. The California Endowment · filed 2020-10-16

The federal question and supplemental jurisdiction statutes do not, in themselves, provide for removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (supplemental jurisdiction); see generally U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Lee Investments LLC, 641 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011).

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction at removal when the original petition asserts a federal cause of action.

Jet Stream Trucking, Inc. d/b/a HBL Towing & Recovery v. CTR Incident Management Specialist, LLC · filed 2022-01-24

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a district court has subject matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... In Plaintiffs’ original petition, Plaintiffs state their unfair competition claim “arises under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 152 U.S.C. § 1125” (Dkt. #1, Exhibit 1 at p. 17). ... Thus, at the time of removal, the Court had original question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1331 supplies subject matter jurisdiction, in conjunction with the APA, over questions involving final agency action.

Melissa Industrial Development Corp. v. North Collin Water Supply Corp. · filed 2003-04-08

The APA provides subject matter jurisdiction in conjunction with 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over questions involving final agency action.

Section 1331 presumptively gives federal district courts jurisdiction to review agency action when the governing statute does not specify a forum for review.

Barnes v. Shalala · filed 1994-09-22

As a general rule, if a statute does not specify the appropriate forum for judicial review of an administrative action, the presumption is that review is available in a federal district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 authorizes a district court to require a federal agency to perform duties imposed by law, with the scope of review governed by APA Section 706.

United States v. Means · filed 1985-12-09

“A court has jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1361 to require an agency to perform such duties as the law imposes on it, and the scope of review is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 706.”

Section 1331 permits nonstatutory review of federal administrative action when the action is reviewable but no statute specifies the route for obtaining review.

Robert Hameetman, Cross-Appellee v. The City of Chicago, Cross-Appellants · filed 1985-09-30

When an administrative action is judicially reviewable but no statute specifies the route to take to get judicial review, an aggrieved party can bring a suit against the responsible officials in a federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal-question statute.

Section 1331 permits district-court review of final Legal Services Corporation determinations despite the absence of an express review provision when Congress has not overcome the presumption favoring judicial review.

National Clients Council, Inc. v. Legal Services Corp. · filed 1985-08-19

The LSCA does not explicitly provide for judicial review of final determinations of the Legal Services Corporation. Nevertheless, such judicial review has been recognized as available in the district courts under general federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in light of the general presumption favoring judicial review, ... and legislative history of the LSCA indicating Congressional presumption that judicial review would be available.

Section 1331 does not permit pre-award district-court intervention in Longshoremen's Act proceedings when the Act provides an adequate post-order review procedure.

Associated-Banning Co. v. Landy · filed 1965-12-08

Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this Court, not under the general review provisions of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 44 Stat. I486 (1927), as amended, 33 U.S.C. § 921 (1964), but under the provisions of 72 Stat. 415 (1958), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1964) [federal question] and the Ad-Procedure Act § 10, 60 Stat. 243 (1946), 5 U.S.C. § 1009 (1964). ... It is apparent, therefore, as pointed out in Paramino Lumber Co. v. Marshall, supra, that plaintiff, by pursuing the procedure prescribed in the statute, itself, has an entirely adequate remedy. It may contest the claim on all appropriate grounds and may urge before the Commissioner and before this Court on review, all of the matters which they prematurely seek to present to the Court in this action.

A Section 1331 constitutional challenge to an agency rule is premature when an available state procedure for obtaining a declaration on the rule's validity has not been exhausted.

Cunningham v. Civil Service Commission of Hawaii · filed 1966-04-13

Therefore plaintiff’s complaint here is premature, and the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby granted and the complaint is hereby dismissed.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction for Administrative Procedure Act review of a federal official's allegedly arbitrary and unauthorized licensing decision when Congress has not specified another review method.

Gager & Goldberg, Inc. v. United States · filed 1968-02-05(a)

Since Congress has not “specified by statute” any method for review of the District Director’s determination, § 10(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 243 (1946), 5 U.S.C. § 703, P.L. 89-554 (Sept. 6, 1966) (formerly 5 U.S.C. § 1009 (b)), permits review in this court by way of a declaratory judgment action. See Gonzalez v. Freeman, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 180, 334 F.2d 570, 575-576 (1964). Jurisdiction to entertain the claim for relief of that nature is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a), 1337.

Section 1331 does not authorize review of Interior Department orders approving or disapproving wills affecting restricted Indian property when the governing statutes preclude judicial review.

High Horse v. Tate · filed 1969-03-03

In a well reasoned opinion in Heffelman v. Udall, 378 F.2d 109 (1967), Judge Lewis held that sections 1 and 2 of 25 U.S.C. § 372 precluded judicial review of such orders in any action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, § 1361, § 1391 or § 2201. In Attocknie v. Udall, 390 F.2d 636 (1968), cert. den. 393 U.S. 833, 89 S. Ct. 104, 21 L.Ed.2d 104, 1968, this court reaffirmed the teachings of Heffelman, and we certainly are not disposed to disturb the law of those cases.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction for judicial review of federal administrative action presenting a federal question.

Ford M. Converse v. Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior · filed 1969-01-13

We think that a federal question is involved ... that the Court had jurisdiction under section 1331 and the Administrative Procedure Act, and that venue was proper under § 1391.

Once jurisdiction was established under Section 1331 and the Administrative Procedure Act, the court did not need to decide whether other jurisdictional statutes also applied.

Citizens Committee for the Hudson Valley v. Volpe · filed 1969-07-11(a)

Since jurisdiction has been established under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Question Statute, we do not determine if jurisdiction exists under the Mandamus Act (28 U.S.O. § 1361), the Commerce and Anti-Trust Statute (28 U.S.C. § 1337), or the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a federal statutory-interpretation claim against federal officers when sovereign immunity does not require dismissal.

State of Washington v. Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior · filed 1969-12-24

Under the foregoing principles, since sovereign immunity did not require dismissal of the complaint in this case, District Court jurisdiction also existed under the federal question and declaratory judgment statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201, and under the mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a claim that a federal officer acted beyond statutory authority when sovereign immunity does not bar the action.

Coalition for United Community Action v. Romney · filed 1970-04-06

In addition, because sovereign immunity does not bar this action, the court has jurisdiction under the federal question and mandamus statutes. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdictional power to examine the validity of final federal agency regulations presenting ripe legal questions.

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Ass'n v. Richardson · filed 1970-10-20

The Court finds (a) that it has the jurisdictional power under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337 and 2201 to examine the validity of the May regulations and (b) that the controversy is ripe for judicial determination because the regulations represent final agency action, the two issues raised are purely legal in nature, no genuine issue of material fact is in dispute, the regulations have a direct and immediate impact upon PMA’s members and the challenge is not calculated to delay or impede the effective enforcement of the Act.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to review a federal agency's allegedly unauthorized and unconstitutional action even when the governing benefits statute supplies no review procedure for that action.

Aquavella v. Richardson · filed 1971-01-25

It is whether a district court has jurisdiction to review the Secretary’s decision, alleged to be without statutory authority and in violation of the Constitution, to suspend payments to a provider of services under the Medicare Act. ... In any event, jurisdiction here is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a suit alleging that a federal agency failed to comply with NEPA.

Sierra Club v. Froehlke · filed 1973-02-16

Early in the present litigation, the government moved to dismiss on several grounds, including both subject matter and personal jurisdiction. The Court denied the motion to dismiss. ... To elaborate here somewhat, this Court finds that jurisdiction is properly based on the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to review actions of the Comptroller of the Currency under the Administrative Procedure Act.

First National Bank of Homestead v. Watson · filed 1973-06-15

It is well settled that the actions of the Comptroller of the Currency are subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701. ... Jurisdiction therefore certainly lies in this court to review his actions. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201-02.

Section 1331(a) reaches state agencies that voluntarily join a federal agency in a federally supported project, give assurances and take prerequisite actions for federal participation, and receive substantial federal benefits.

Simmans v. Grant · filed 1974-01-22(a)

Jurisdiction over the federal defendants, which is not contested, is properly founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (Federal question) as well as 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (Administrative Procedure Act). Jurisdiction also properly lies as to the two state agency defendants who do contest jurisdiction. They have voluntarily entered into a joint venture with a federal agency to build a project which potentially may impinge upon the environment. They have made various assurances to the federal agency, taken numerous actions as a prerequisite to federal participation, and will reap substantial benefits from the efforts of the federal agency. Under such circumstances jurisdiction lies.

A Section 1331 constitutional challenge need not await exhaustion when the administrative process is wholly inadequate because the agency adjudicator cannot decide the constitutionality of the procedures being challenged.

Frost v. Weinberger · filed 1974-05-03

The instant action falls within the first exception. Since an Administrative Law Judge is precluded from passing upon the constitutionality of the very procedures he is called upon to administer, the administrative procedures are totally inadequate to resolve the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge.

Section 1331 permits a district court to decide whether the Comptroller improperly failed to refer a bank-holding-company issue to the Federal Reserve Board, but not the merits of the alleged Holding Company Act violation.

American Bank v. Smith · filed 1974-10-04

It would appear that the District Court had jurisdiction to determine whether the Comptroller acted improperly in failing to refer those issues to the Federal Reserve Board pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. On the other hand, it seems equally clear that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the merits of the alleged violation of the Holding Company Act.

Section 1331(a) gives federal-question jurisdiction to review a federal agency's determination that a school district is ineligible for federal education funds.

Board of Education v. Department of Health, Education · filed 1975-04-18(a)

The Court has jurisdiction over this suit, which challenges HEW’s determination that plaintiff is ineligible for ESAA funds, under its federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 and the Administrative Procedure Act supplied jurisdiction to decide whether federal officials had to prepare an environmental impact statement under NEPA.

State of Illinois Ex Rel. Scott v. Butterfield · filed 1975-06-16

In light of our determination that our jurisdiction is properly invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Administrative Procedure Act, we decline to rule on the other alleged bases of jurisdiction.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction over a federal savings-and-loan applicant in an action challenging Federal Home Loan Bank Board action even when the Board itself is not suable as an entity.

Bank of Ozark v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board · filed 1975-08-27(a)

Actually, the question is not important because it was conceded in argument that the individual members of the Board, who are defendants here, are subject to suit and because the Court has jurisdiction of the applicant under the general “federal question” jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to procedures used by a state administrative agency, though an unripe damages demand requiring substantive review may be dismissed.

Siletti v. New York City Employees' Retirement System · filed 1975-10-07

Jurisdiction is predicated not only on § 1343(3) (4) and the Fourteenth Amendment but on 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Except as to his claim for money damages, Siletti does not seek a substantive review of the disability finding, but rather, challenges the procedures employed to reach that determination. ... Such a claim properly falls within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. ... Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, with the exception of the plaintiff’s claim for money damages, is denied.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction when federal officials allegedly take property without due process and the claims succeed or fail on construction of federal statutes and regulations.

Coomes v. Adkinson · filed 1976-05-14(a)

Plaintiffs properly posit jurisdiction in this Court on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 since they adequately-have alleged that the federal defendants have taken or threatened to take private property without due process of law. ... Plaintiffs’ claims succeed or fail on interpretation of federal law and they seek judicial construction of 25 U.S.C. § 393; 25 C.F.R. subchapter A, part 2; and 25 C.F.R. part 151, thus, federal question jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 judicial enforcement of rights under the Back Pay Act requires exhaustion of available administrative remedies.

Burke v. Green · filed 1976-06-18

The attempt of plaintiffs, to judicially enforce under § 1331 the important rights created by that act, is futile because of a failure to exhaust their administrative remedies.

Section 1331 supports district-court pre-enforcement review of a federal agency order when the agency statute does not make its court-of-appeals review procedure exclusive.

Bituminous Coal Operators' Association, Inc. v. Secretary of Interior · filed 1977-01-04

The complaint alleges that jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 (Declaratory Judgment Act), and 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. (Administrative Procedure Act). ... Because the Act neither states nor implies that § 816(a) furnishes the exclusive procedure for obtaining judicial review, other procedures are not precluded. Consequently, the Administrative Procedure Act is applicable, and the Secretary's order is reviewable. ... The complaint's allegation of a federal question sustains jurisdiction, and the application for declaratory and injunctive relief was properly made in the district court where a record could be developed.

A facial constitutional challenge to the validity of federal statutes must be filed in federal district court under Section 1331 rather than presented as a direct petition to review an agency order.

American Civil Liberties Union v. Federal Communications Commission · filed 1987-07-17

First, although Christensen's challenge is styled as a petition for review of an order of the FCC, it is in reality a facial constitutional challenge to the validity of Secs. 611 and 612. Accordingly, Christensen was required to file his claim in federal district court under the general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (1982)

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a facial constitutional challenge to a federal statute even when a separate challenge to an agency regulation proceeds through direct agency review.

Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Edwin Meese, Attorney General of the Unit · filed 1987-09-11

The district court has jurisdiction to consider the statutory challenge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction to review and compel federal agency action when an agency unlawfully refuses to perform a mandatory statutory duty.

Hinton v. United States Department of Education · filed 1988-09-13

For reasons expressed below, this Court’s jurisdiction at this stage ... of the proceedings is in reality founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The Randolph-Sheppard Act makes it very clear that the plaintiff is entitled to an arbitration panel.

Section 1331 and the Administrative Procedure Act provide district-court jurisdiction over a National Environmental Policy Act challenge to agency action.

Sylvester v. U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers · filed 1989-03-27

The district court had jurisdiction over Sylvester's NEPA claim under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (1982) and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 702 (Supp. IV 1986).

Section 1331 and the Administrative Procedure Act provide subject-matter jurisdiction for judicial review of ripe federal agency action.

Wabash Valley Power Ass'n v. Rural Electrification Administration · filed 1989-05-16

Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has satisfied the criteria for judicial review of federal agency action pursuant to the APA and that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this cause of action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (general federal question).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction to review a military discharge for compliance with federal law when Section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act waives sovereign immunity for the requested nonmonetary relief.

Secora v. Fox · filed 1989-12-01

In addition, the Magistrate concluded, since the Defendants conceded that the Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. § 702 constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity, that the Court had subject matter jurisdiction to review Plaintiff’s discharge under the general federal question jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... The Court agrees with the Magistrate that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over both Plaintiffs monetary and non-monetary claims on the grounds set forth above.

Section 1331 presumptively permits review of final agency action, and an agency cannot foreclose judicial review by regulation without clear and convincing evidence that Congress intended to block review.

Carrillo v. Mohrman · filed 1989-11-30

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 this Court has jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the “Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” This jurisdictional grant would appear to make reviewable a broad range of decisions made by administrative agencies pursuant to their delegated authority. ... The agency itself, however, cannot block judicial review of its own decisions in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that Congress agrees.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a challenge arising under federal immigration laws, but review of the agency action also requires finality and compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act’s review limits.

International Longshoremen's And Warehousemen's Union v. Meese · filed 1989-12-20

This case arises under the federal immigration laws. Consequently, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1331 (federal question) and 8 U.S.C. section 1329 (district court has original jurisdiction over all cases arising under the immigration laws). ... Neither party raised the question whether the INS' action was reviewable, but because this question goes to the subject matter jurisdiction of this court, we must raise the question sua sponte. ... The INS' action is final in the sense that the ILWU has no administrative remedy to overturn the advisory opinion or policy statement.

Section 1331 and the Administrative Procedure Act permit a district court to review a final military-records correction board decision refusing to alter a veteran's discharge status.

Etheridge v. William L. Ball, Iii, Secretary of the Navy · filed 1990-01-29

Under Bowen v. Massachusetts, 56 U.S.L.W. 4878 (U.S. June 29, 1988) (Nos. 87-712, 87-929), and Ulmet v. United States, --- F.2d ----, No. 88-2593 (4th Cir. Oct. 31, 1989), Etheridge's challenge to the final decision of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, refusing to alter his discharge status, may be brought in the district court under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 702).

Section 1331 permits judicial review of Legal Services Corporation action despite the Corporation's claim that it is accountable only to Congress.

Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. v. Legal Services Corp. · filed 1990-06-25

LSC asserts that it is accountable only to Congress and challenges the Court’s jurisdiction to review its actions. However, the Court holds that it has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A statute’s limited provision for direct appellate review of specified agency orders does not divest district courts of Section 1331 jurisdiction over statutory or constitutional challenges to other agency action absent congressional intent to do so.

California Ex. Rel. Van De Kamp v. Reilly · filed 1990-09-30

There is no indication that Congress intended the limited review provision of § 409(g) to deprive federal district courts of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear statutory or constitutional challenges to the agency’s actions. ... Based on the foregoing, it appears that the statute’s limited judicial review provision does not divest this court of jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 authorizes review of a state public authority’s compliance with federal law even though the APA does not apply, and the APA exception for action committed to agency discretion does not bar review because it reaches only federal agencies.

Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Power Authority of New York · filed 1991-04-11

Judicial review in this case is based not on the APA, but on the general grant of jurisdiction over federal questions, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and on the express grant of jurisdiction found in the Federal Power Act: ... PASNY is not an agency within this exception. Therefore, there is no obstacle to a review of PASNY’s actions.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a disappointed federal-contract bidder’s federal-law challenge to a procurement decision, while the Administrative Procedure Act supplies standing for judicial review.

Stay, Inc. v. Cheney · filed 1991-09-04

Stay's action for relief in the district court arises under federal law as prescribed in the jurisdictional statute codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and Stay’s legal standing to appeal the GAO’s decision lies in those portions of the Administrative Procedure Act codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706.

Section 1331 supplies subject matter jurisdiction over an APA challenge to federal agency action unless an APA bar to judicial review applies.

Vigil v. Rhoades · filed 1992-01-15

Nevertheless, a federal district court’s subject matter jurisdiction over an APA claim arises under 28 U.S.C; § 1331. ... If either APA preclusion applies, federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not exist.

Section 1331 supplies district court jurisdiction to review federal agency action unless another statute gives exclusive jurisdiction to a different court.

Southeast Kansas Community Action Program Incorporated v. Secretary Of Agriculture Of The United States · filed 1992-06-22

Subject matter jurisdiction to review agency action is, therefore, found in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 unless some other statute, such as the Tucker Act, mandates exclusive jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction for an equitable challenge to a military correction board’s action when the Administrative Procedure Act waives sovereign immunity.

Guerrero v. Stone · filed 1992-07-16

This provision waives sovereign immunity for equitable actions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction, and we turn to the district court’s conclusion that the Board determination passed muster under the arbitrary and capricious standard.

Section 1331 gives a federal district court jurisdiction to review the Secretary of Agriculture’s final decision in a Dairy Termination Program dispute.

Lucio v. Yeutter · filed 1992-08-27

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review the Secretary’s final decision.

Section 1331 supports district court jurisdiction over claims to compel unreasonably delayed agency action when the governing statutes provide no direct review in the court of appeals.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Jamison · filed 1992-12-08

However, neither FCLAA nor FLPMA contains such a direct review provision. Thus the district court has jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, the mandamus statute, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal question statute.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over challenges to reviewable federal agency action taken under federal law or regulation.

Berg v. Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District · filed 1993-01-20

However, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 vests in district courts jurisdiction over challenges to reviewable federal agency actions taken under federal law or regulation, and the Administrative Procedure Act provides the method and scope of review unless a statute expressly precludes review.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to review federal agency action when the APA provides a right to judicial review.

City of Reading, Pa. v. Austin · filed 1993-03-17

Based on the right to judicial review under the APA, we have jurisdiction to review GSA’s action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction for a federal court to review federal agency action.

Miller v. U.S. International Development Cooperation Agency · filed 1993-03-31

The Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Administrative Procedures Act.

Section 1331 permits district court review of final agency action outside a special statutory review procedure, but does not permit a party to bypass an available exclusive review procedure.

Maxon Marine, Incorporated v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs · filed 1994-12-23

When that is. so, a person aggrieved by agency action that is not subject to the special procedure can, if the action is final, ripe, and otherwise appropriate for judicial review, obtain review by filing a suit for injunctive or declaratory relief in federal district court under the general federal-question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Maxon not only failed to exhaust its administrative remedies; it sought review in the wrong court.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over APA challenges to federal agency action arising under federal law unless a statute expressly precludes review.

Mann v. Haigh · filed 1995-01-20

Unless a statute expressly precludes review, a federal district court has jurisdiction over challenges to agency actions under the APA, as claims arising under federal law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to review an FTC denial of a rulemaking petition that is final agency action under the APA when Congress has not precluded review.

Weight Watchers International, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · filed 1995-02-07

Because there does not appear to be any legislative intent to preclude review of FTC denial of rulemaking petitions, and because such denials appear to be final orders as a matter of law, we hold that the district court has jurisdiction to review the FTC's denial of the rulemaking petition under the APA and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to review FDA regulations issued under 21 U.S.C. § 343(r) because the FDCA provides no review procedure for those regulations.

Wellife Products v. Shalala · filed 1995-04-21

Because the FDCA makes no provision for the judicial review of regulations promulgated under section 343(r), such actions fall within the scope of the district courts’ general federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits nonstatutory review of a challenge to agency review procedures even when a separate statute limits direct challenges to agency orders.

Employers Insurance of Wausau, a Mutual Company v. Carol M. Browner, Administrator of the United States Environmental Pr · filed 1995-05-17

This suit was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a “nonstatu-tory” review proceeding (of which more later), an accepted method of challenging the procedures used by an agency. ... The relief sought was to invalidate the limitations that section 9613(h) places on the possible routes for challenging such orders. Such relief could be obtained only in a suit against the Administrator and therefore the suit is not precluded by those limitations; it is, as we suggested at the outset of this opinion, a proper invocation of nonstatutory review.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a claim challenging a federal agency’s application of its regulation to a party.

Arch Mineral Corp. v. Babbitt · filed 1995-08-01

Plaintiffs Complaint asserts the Court has jurisdiction based upon the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 (declaratory judgment), and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (injunctions). ... As illustrated by the several rulings of this opinion, Plaintiff satisfies federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this ground.

Section 1331 supplies subject matter jurisdiction for an APA action seeking review of federal agency action even when the substantive statute provides no implied private right of action.

Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Busey · filed 1996-04-02

While the APA does not provide an independent source of subject matter jurisdiction, it does provide a federal right of action where subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (giving district courts jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the laws of the United States). ... Defendants argue that § 1331 cannot confer jurisdiction over the conformity claims against the Air Force because, under Middlesex County Sewerage Auth. v. National Sea Clammers Ass'n, 453 U.S. 1, 101 S.Ct. 2615, 69 L.Ed.2d 435 (1981), no implied private right of action exists under the Clean Air Act. Defendants' reliance on Sea Clammers is misplaced. ... But an implied right of action is not a predicate for a right of judicial review under the APA.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction to review challenged federal agency actions.

Feezor v. Babbitt · filed 1996-12-20

Jurisdiction to review the challenged agency actions is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to review agency action that is not final under § 704 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Gallo Cattle Company, a California Limited Partnership v. The United States Department of Agriculture · filed 1998-11-03

Accordingly, as there are no legal consequences resulting from the order denying interim relief and, thus, no “final agency action,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 704 of the APA could not vest the district court with jurisdiction to review the order.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over APA claims challenging unreasonably delayed agency action when resolving the claim requires interpreting federal law.

Yu v. Brown · filed 1999-01-28

Because, in cases such as this, the APA provides an enforceable legal right to agency action within a reasonable time, and the duty of the agency is prescribed by federal statute requiring interpretation of federal law, § 1331 and APA § 706(1) combine to provide federal subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over APA challenges to federal agency action unless a statute explicitly precludes review.

California v. Shalala · filed 1999-02-02

As we have elsewhere noted, "[u]nless a statute explicitly precludes review ... a federal district court has jurisdiction over APA challenges to agency actions as claims 'arising under' federal law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331." Parola v. Weinberger, 848 F.2d 956, 958 (9th Cir.1988). A district court would therefore have jurisdiction to hear an APA challenge to the Secretary's action in this case.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to how an agency exercises its authority when review of that agency action is committed to a court of appeals.

Marchiano v. National Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc. · filed 2001-02-16

Because Marchiano is not attacking the enabling statute itself, TRAC’s constitutional exception does not apply, and this court lacks federal question jurisdiction to hear Marchiano’s claims.

Section 1331 does not provide an independent jurisdictional basis to review agency action when the APA supplies an adequate, exclusive method of review.

Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission · filed 2001-11-28

Neither Section 1331 nor 1337, however, provides an independent jurisdictional basis because Congress has provided a specific method for reviewing agency action in the APA, and that “specific statutory method, if adequate, is exclusive.”

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction to review federal agency action when Congress has not assigned review elsewhere or precluded it.

Gant v. Reilly · filed 2002-09-11

As the U.S. Commission’s revocation of the petitioner’s parole was an action by a federal agency, absent clear statutory language by Congress granting the Superior Court jurisdiction to review the U.S. Commission’s decisions, judicial review is proper only by a federal district court. This is because “[s]uits against federal officers or agencies arise under the laws of the United States, unless a statute precludes judicial review, and thus 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to review a federal agency decision under the APA when no statute precludes review.

El Rio Santa Cruz Neighborhood Health Center, Inc. v. Department of Health & Human Services · filed 2004-01-15

There is a presumption in favor of reviewability under the APA, ... and thus, “[e]ven though the APA itself technically grants no jurisdiction, power to review any agency action exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” ... No statutory provision precludes APA review of the HHS determination at issue here. ... Thus, the Court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ APA claim.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to review Bureau of Indian Affairs action under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa Election Board v. Bureau of Indian Affairs · filed 2004-06-10

In this case, the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review, pursuant to the APA, the action taken by the BIA.

Section 1331, together with the APA, gives district courts jurisdiction to hear claims that an agency has acted contrary to its regulations and to compel agency action.

Dong v. Chertoff · filed 2007-09-06

If the allegation is that the USCIS has acted inconsistent with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(18), the Court has jurisdiction to hear that claim and to compel action under the authority of the APA, in conjunction with federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331, together with the APA, gives federal courts jurisdiction over challenges to federal agency action when the plaintiff states an APA claim.

Kashkool v. Chertoff · filed 2008-04-07

The general grant of jurisdiction to determine federal questions under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in conjunction with the APA, is sufficient to confer jurisdiction over a challenge to federal agency action.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a colorable claim that an agency violated the APA by unreasonably delaying action.

Nigmadzhanov v. Mueller · filed 2008-05-01

Thus, when a plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated the APA, the court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over APA claims unless Congress expressly precludes judicial review of the challenged agency action.

DINE CITIZENS AGAINST RUINING OUR ENV. v. Klein · filed 2009-09-30

This is quite true, but in the same decision in which the Supreme Court decided this question, it also held that federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 extends to APA claims unless Congress has specifically precluded judicial review of the particular agency action that is the subject of the APA claim. ... Accordingly, unless Congress has expressly precluded judicial review of the OSM decisions at issue here, federal question jurisdiction exists for the federal courts to decide Plaintiffs' claims that the OSM violated NEPA in the course of reaching these decisions.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction to review agency action arising under federal law.

Doe v. Rumsfeld · filed 2011-08-02

The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (granting “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”), which “confer[s] jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action.”