28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to review an agency stay issued under the Administrative Procedure Act when Congress has not assigned exclusive review elsewhere.

Sierra Club v. Jackson · filed 2011-09-27

Because EPA’s Delay Notice was issued under the APA, it is subject to judicial review in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to review federal agency action under the APA; the APA supplies the limits on review.

Chehazeh v. Attorney General of United States · filed 2012-01-11

We are persuaded that the District Court has jurisdiction under § 1331 and may, under the APA, review Chehazeh‟s petition.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over equitable claims seeking review of final federal agency action under federal regulations.

Frazier v. Mabus · filed 2012-09-28

This Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs equitable elaim(s) arising from the allegedly wrongful promotional consideration/decision by the ERSB underlying the BCNR’s denials of his petition for redress.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction to review a federal agency's recognition of a tribal government for violations of federal law even when the dispute implicates tribal membership.

California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar · filed 2013-09-06

It complains a federal agency has recognized a rogue tribal government in violation of the APA and other federal laws. ... Because the question here is whether the Secretary violated federal law, the Court has jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 supplies federal district court jurisdiction over APA challenges to agency action, absent other limits on judicial review.

Capener v. Napolitano · filed 2013-11-07

Therefore, absent other judicial review limits, Plaintiff may rely on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to bring her APA action in federal district court.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over challenges to federal agency action, so the APA exception for action committed to agency discretion concerns failure to state a claim rather than lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Target Training International, Ltd. v. Lee · filed 2014-03-05

The problem with this purported challenge to subject matter jurisdiction-albeit a problem that was not addressed by either TTI or the Director-is that "[t]he APA does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. Rather, a federal court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over challenges to federal agency action." ... Thus, an agency’s motion to dismiss an action for judicial review on the ground that the challenged agency action is “committed to agency discretion by law,” and, as such, is excepted from judicial review pursuant to § 701(a)(2) of the APA, is not a Rule 12(b)(1) challenge to subject matter jurisdiction. Rather, it is a challenge to the plaintiffs ability to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a challenge to whether a federal agency complied with federal statutes and implementing regulations.

V. Real Estate Group, Inc. v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services · filed 2015-01-09

However, a federal court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 “over challenges to federal agency action as claims arising under federal law.” ... The Court finds that whether the USCIS complied with the INA, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, clearly raises a question under federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over Administrative Procedure Act claims seeking review of adverse BIA action on an I-130 petition.

LeBlanc v. Eric Holder, Jr. · filed 2015-04-21

Jurisdiction for such claims exists in the district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and they must be brought within six years, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a).

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction to review agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.

NMS Healthcare of Hagerstown, LLC v. United States Department of Health & Human Services · filed 2015-10-13

Instead, the jurisdictional source for an action under the APA is 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2012), the federal question statute, which grants district courts original jurisdiction to review agency action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to review agency action, including APA claims, unless another jurisdictional bar applies.

Haines v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration · filed 2016-02-18

Thus, “[a]lthough the APA does not directly grant jurisdiction, the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ‘confer[s] jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action, regardless of whether the APA of its own force may serve as a jurisdictional predicate.’” Jama, 760 F.3d at 494 (quoting Califano, 430 U.S. at 105); see also Sharkey v. Quarantillo, 541 F.3d 75, 84 (2d Cir. 2008); Trudeau v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 456 F.3d 178, 185 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction to review claims challenging agency action under the APA.

Marquette County Road Commission v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · filed 2016-05-18

Plaintiff seeks review of agency action under the APA. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction to review Plaintiffs claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to review agency action even when the APA does not itself provide a jurisdictional basis.

State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game v. Federal Subsistence Board · filed 2020-11-18

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which “confer[s] jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action, regardless of whether the APA of its own force may serve as a jurisdictional predicate.”

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to review agency action even when the Administrative Procedure Act does not itself supply jurisdiction.

Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Management · filed 2023-04-03

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which “confer[s] jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action, regardless of whether the [Administrative Procedure Act] of its own force may serve as a jurisdictional predicate.”

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction to review agency action even when the APA’s final-action requirement is disputed.

Heng v. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services · filed 2024-09-30

Because Plaintiffs invoke, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) as a basis for subject matter jurisdiction (see Doc. 1 at ¶ 4), dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is improper.

Section 1331(a) permits federal courts to review agency action against the United States or its agencies without a specified amount in controversy, unless Congress has precluded review.

Koden v. United States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service · filed 1977-10-27(a)

On October 21, 1976, Congress enacted Pub.L. 94-574, 90 Stat. 2721, which amends 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) to eliminate the requirement of a specified amount in controversy as a prerequisite to the maintenance of “any [§ 1331] action brought against the United States, any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof in his official capacity.” The Court held that the obvious effect of this modification, subject only to preclusion-of-review statutes created or retained by Congress, is to confer jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action, regardless of whether the APA of its own force may serve as a jurisdictional predicate. We have not been alerted to, nor do we find, any preclusion-of-review statutes created by Congress affecting the right of judicial review in this case.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over federal-law challenges to agency action unless a special statutory review scheme precludes district court review.

Adya LLC v. Cole · filed 2026-03-23

Generally, federal district courts may hear challenges to federal agency actions through 28 U.S.C. § 1331’s jurisdictional grant for claims “arising under” federal law. ... But sometimes, Congress creates special statutory review schemes that preclude district courts’ review. ... The Court thinks not and finds jurisdiction over this matter proper.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over suits in equity challenging unlawful federal agency action.

Sidak v. United States International Trade Commission · filed 2026-04-24

District courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. And that federal-question jurisdiction extends to suits in equity challenging unlawful agency actions.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to review federal agency action, subject to statutes that preclude review.

Hostetter v. United States · filed 1984-08-02

However, section 1331 confers such jurisdiction on district courts to review agency action subject only to preclusion-of-review statutes.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction over an interim challenge to agency action when a statute assigns review of final agency action to the court of appeals and that review remains available.

Jamison v. Federal Trade Commission · filed 1986-03-03

First, the TRAC court made it clear that the import of its decision "strips the District Court of general federal question jurisdiction" over interlocutory appeals from agency action or inaction when a statute vests review over final agency action in the court of appeals.

Section 1331 generally does not permit district court review of interlocutory agency action when Congress provides for review in a court of appeals, subject to narrow exceptions.

Arnold v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission · filed 1997-10-21

Kabeller, Inc., supra recognizes two exceptions providing district courts with jurisdiction to review interlocutory agency action, not otherwise reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The first exception applies where there is a clear departure from agency authority, and without district court intervention, the agency action would evade review. ... This exception is clearly inapplicable to the case at bar, because Congress has provided specifically for judicial review of CFTC orders in the applicable court of appeals.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to review claims that a federal administrator acted beyond statutory authority, under the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act.

University of Maryland v. Cleland · filed 1981-06-02

Since the present action alleges that the VA Administrator acted beyond the scope of his authority, judicial review of the plaintiff’s claims is not precluded by 38 U.S.C. § 211(a), and jurisdiction exists under § 1331 to review his administrative actions under the standards set forth in the APA.

Section 1331(a), together with the APA, provides jurisdiction to review federal agency action when sovereign immunity is waived.

CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER, ETC. v. Bergland · filed 1981-06-02(a)

Although congress did not expressly waive sovereign immunity under section 1331, I find first that the federal question statute and the APA taken together provide a basis for jurisdiction to review this agency action and second that congress intended for sovereign immunity to be waived in situations such as this where aggrieved parties seek review of federal agency action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to review agency action when a claim arises under federal law, even though the APA does not itself confer jurisdiction.

Simaga,et al. v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services · filed 2022-09-12

Here, because Plaintiffs cite 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a basis for jurisdiction (see ECF No. 1 at ¶ 7) this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims relating to the denial of Mr. Karaga’s I-175 Petition.

Section 1331, as amended in 1976, confers jurisdiction on federal courts to review federal agency action without an amount-in-controversy requirement, subject to statutes that preclude review.

Califano v. Sanders · filed 1977-02-23(a)

The obvious effect of this modification, subject only to preclusion-of-review statutes created or retained by Congress, is to confer jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action, regardless of whether the APA of its own force may serve as a jurisdictional predicate.

After the 1976 amendment, Section 1331 permits review of federal agency action adversely affecting a person without an amount-in-controversy requirement.

Clark v. Richardson · filed 1977-02-24

Jurisdiction exists, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1966), as amended by Pub.L. 94-574, 90 Stat. 2721 (1976), to review agen ... cy action adversely affecting a person regardless of the amount in controversy. Jurisdiction is, therefore, properly predicated upon this statute.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction over an actual controversy concerning the actions of a federal agency.

State of Alaska v. Andrus · filed 1977-04-11(a)

Initially the court notes that there is an actual controversy involving the actions of an agency of the federal government. Accordingly, jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), and declaratory relief is an appropriate remedy.

Section 1331(a) confers jurisdiction over an action seeking judicial review of federal agency action without regard to the amount in controversy, although the Administrative Procedure Act is not itself jurisdictional.

United States Steel Corp. v. Train · filed 1977-05-13(a)

While the APA is not an independent source of jurisdiction, Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977), 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) confers jurisdiction over actions such as this without regard to the amount in controversy.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction over an action against federal officers in their official capacities that arises under federal law.

Frederick County Fruit Growers' Ass'n v. Marshall · filed 1977-07-29(a)

Jurisdiction rests with this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) as an action against officers of the U. S. in their official capacity and arising under the laws of the U. S.

Amended Section 1331(a) gives federal courts jurisdiction to review federal agency action without an amount-in-controversy requirement.

Albert v. Chafee · filed 1977-07-29(a)

It noted, however, that the effect of a recent amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), which eliminates the requirement of a specified amount-in-controversy in an action against a government agency, “is to confer jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action, regardless of whether the APA of its own force may serve as a jurisdictional predicate.” ... We find that pursuant to this section Albert is properly in federal court.

The 1976 amendment extended Section 1331 to federal-question actions against federal agencies and officials without regard to the former amount requirement, including claims worth less than $10,000.

Mister Ralpho v. J. Raymond Bell, Chairman, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States · filed 1977-09-12

Ralpho’s case obviously arises under the Constitution and federal laws, and he alleged that the amount in controversy is greater than $10,000. Since his underlying claim involves less than $1,000, it is difficult to see how his allegation might be substantiated, and if it appears to a “legal certainty that the claim is really for less” than $10,000, § 1331 as constituted when this case was submitted would not provide jurisdiction. ... But §1331 was amended by the Act of October 21, 1976, Pub.L. No. 94-574, 90 Stat. 2721, to provide that “no such sum or value shall be required in any [federal question] action against the United States, any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof in his official capacity.”

Section 1331(a) does not give a district court jurisdiction to review nonfinal agency action when the governing statute assigns review of the agency's final determinations to the courts of appeals.

Cumberland Capital Corp. v. Harris · filed 1977-09-20(a)

Plaintiff asserts that this court has jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). Defendant contends that the court lacks jurisdiction because no final agency action has been taken, and because review of HUD’s determination that plaintiff is subject to the provisions of the Interstate Land Sales Act may only be obtained in the appropriate United States Court of Appeals. For the reasons hereinafter stated, the court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.

Section 1331 supplies district-court jurisdiction for Administrative Procedure Act review of a federal agency's decision when that decision is reviewable and not committed to agency discretion.

Save the Bay, Inc. v. Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency · filed 1977-09-21

To the extent EPA’s review of and decision not to veto a proposed state NPDES permit are reviewable, an aggrieved person may obtain review under Section 10 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, invoking the district court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction over a federal agency challenge even when the complaint mistakenly cites only the APA, because pleading a jurisdictional statute neither creates nor defeats jurisdiction.

Fort Sumter Tours, Inc. v. Andrus · filed 1977-09-30(a)

Although the complaint alleges jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 701-706, ... the recent pronouncement by that Court in ... Califano v. Sanders, ... makes it clear that the Administrative Procedure Act is not an independent source of subject matter jurisdiction to review agency action. ... Since this Court properly has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), such jurisdiction is not defeated by failure to designate such statute in the complaint, for “(I)t is well settled that the recitation of a statute can neither deprive a court of jurisdiction nor confer jurisdiction upon it.”

The 1976 amendment to Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction to review federal agency action unless a specific statute precludes review.

Stickelman v. United States of America · filed 1977-10-21

The district court erred in holding that it was without jurisdiction to review the denial of Stickelman’s application. … However, it found that a 1976 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 90 Stat. 2721, is a jurisdictional grant except to the extent that some specific statute precludes review. There is no such statute here, so the district court had jurisdiction of the case.

Section 1331(a), as amended, permits judicial review when a federal agency fails to comply with statutory duties to provide equal job-assignment and promotion opportunities to handicapped employees.

Ms. Mary Ryan v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation · filed 1977-10-25(a)

If an agency fails to comply with its duty, then the aggrieved individual is entitled to seek judicial review of the agency action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (1970), ... Pub. L. No. 94-574, 90 Stat. 2721 (1976), ... and the Administrative' Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (1970).

Section 1331(a) permits immediate equitable review of federal agency action that is functionally final and whose delayed review could cause substantial hardship.

Fort Sumter Tours, Inc. v. Andrus · filed 1977-11-03(a)

The district court exercised jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... Applying the Abbott Laboratories criteria, we conclude that Service’s decision to deny Fort Sumter its statutory preference and to negotiate instead with Gray Line is “final agency action” within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act § 10(c). ... We hold, therefore, that the district court acted properly in exercising its general federal equity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 independently sustains federal jurisdiction over a challenge to federal administrative action even though the Administrative Procedure Act does not itself grant jurisdiction.

Doe v. Robert E. Hampton, Individually and as Chairman, U. S. Civil Service Commission · filed 1977-11-03

Although the jurisdiction that might have been predicated upon the former basis has evaporated after the Supreme Court's decision in Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977), the complaint clearly survives upon the latter.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction to review federal agency action arising under Medicaid when Congress has enacted no statute precluding judicial review.

American Health Care Ass'n, Inc. v. Califano · filed 1977-12-07

Jurisdiction is vested in this Court pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, and 2201-02. ... We find no statutory provision precluding judicial review of questions arising under the Medicaid Act.

The 1976 amendment to Section 1331 broadly authorizes review of federal agency action unless Congress has specifically precluded review.

Welch v. United States · filed 1978-02-03(a)

While the amendment of § 1331(a) “undoubtedly evinces Congress’ intention and understanding that judicial review should be widely available to challenge the actions of federal administrative officials,” ... this Court is without power to review the decision of the Secretary of the Navy ... if Congress has expressly •or impliedly shielded this determination from judicial review. ... Since none of the factors which would overcome the presumption of reviewability of an agency’s interpretation of the law is present in this case, the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a) and 1361.

Section 1331 supports district-court review of otherwise unreviewable federal agency action when declaratory and injunctive relief is sought on a question of federal law.

Association of Bituminous Contractors v. Andrus · filed 1978-02-22

Where a decision has been made ... not ... to assess penalties, however, there is no Coal Mine Act statutory review procedure at all. ... As declaratory judgment and injunctive relief are being sought, and the question involves an interpretation of federal law relevant to interstate commerce, jurisdiction in the district court would be appropriate ... (1970).

Section 1331(a), together with the Little Tucker Act, supplied jurisdiction over a national bank's challenge to a federal Comptroller regulation and request to recover an examination charge.

First National Bank of Milaca v. John G. Heimann, Comptroller of the Currency of the United States · filed 1978-03-10(a)

At the outset the district court was confronted with a jurisdictional question which it resolved in favor of the plaintiff. While the question has not been urged here, we have considered it and have concluded that the district court had jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a) and 1346(a)(2).

Section 1331(a) supplied jurisdiction over an action against the Environmental Protection Agency.

Union Elec. Co. v. EPA · filed 1978-03-16(a)

The jurisdiction of this Court exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) inasmuch as this is an action brought against EPA, an agency of the United States.

Amended Section 1331(a) requires no amount in controversy for a federal-law action against federal officials.

Inland Oil & Transport Co. v. Adams · filed 1978-04-24(a)

We agree with Inland that the district court had subject matter “jurisdiction” of the case since it arises under the laws of the United States, and as 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) is now written, no jurisdictional amount is required in a case of this kind.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to review an agency decision when the claim arises under the Administrative Procedure Act and exclusive court-of-appeals review does not apply.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Administrator, Energy Research & Development Administration · filed 1978-05-08

Since ERDA’s decision not to seek licenses on the tanks in issue is not an NRC order and was not the result of any proceeding conducted pursuant to section 2239, 28 U.S.C. § 2342(4) is, by its express terms, inapplicable to ERDA’s decision. Accordingly, jurisdiction to review ERDA’s decision is properly vested in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 since plaintiffs’ Count I claim arises under section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06 (1970).

Section 1331(a) gives district courts jurisdiction to review an agency’s interpretation of an existing valid regulation, as distinct from a challenge to the regulation’s validity.

Amoco Oil Co. v. United States · filed 1978-05-08(a)

Thus, jurisdiction of this court lies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) to entertain plaintiff’s challenge to defendants’ interpretations of an existing valid regulation.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction over a suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that challenges federal regulations under federal statutory and constitutional law.

Geophysical Corp. of Alaska v. Andrus · filed 1978-07-24(a)

Whether or not that section can confer jurisdiction in this case it is clear that 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) is an appropriate jurisdictional base. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.

Section 1331(a) does not confer jurisdiction to review federal agency action when Congress has statutorily precluded that review.

Towry v. United States · filed 1978-07-31(a)

Further, we find that judicial review of the final agency action which forms the basis of this litigation is statutorily precluded; thus, 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), as amended in 1976, does not contain a grant of subject matter jurisdiction over this cause.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to review federal agency compliance before the agency has taken final action ripe for review.

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority · filed 1978-12-21

We conclude therefore that as to the first three causes of action which claim federal question jurisdiction based upon Sections 5(h)(2) and 5(i) of the UMT Act, a review of the Amended Complaint shows that there has not been a final agency action, and pursuant to the law heretofore discussed, this Court will grant the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331(a), not the Administrative Procedure Act, supplies subject-matter jurisdiction for federal judicial review of agency action.

Laden v. Andrus · filed 1979-04-02(a)

Nevertheless, the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 permits review of agency action only when an essential right or immunity arises under federal law and the controversy is actual, ripe, and brought by a claimant with standing.

T M Systems, Inc. v. United States · filed 1979-05-03

The better view appears to be that where the matter in issue involves a question arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, and the question concerns agency action, then § 1331 confers jurisdiction for the federal court to review the action, assuming the matter is an actual case or controversy and is ripe for review, and assuming also that the claimant has sufficient interest, or standing, to bring the claim.

Section 1331(a), rather than the APA, supplies subject-matter jurisdiction for judicial review of agency action.

Laden v. Andrus · filed 1979-05-11(a)

Nevertheless, the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 supplies district-court jurisdiction for APA review of federal agency action.

Standard Oil Company Of California v. Federal Trade Commission · filed 1979-05-18

Moreover, as SOCAL pleaded, the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a colorable claim that a federal agency failed to comply with constitutional, statutory, or regulatory directives.

Commonwealth of Virginia v. Marshall · filed 1979-05-30

Virginia's claims fit into these categories and, hence, federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is properly invoked.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a colorable claim that a federal agency failed to comply with constitutional, statutory, or regulatory directives.

Virginia ex rel. Commissioner v. Marshall · filed 1979-05-30

Virginia’s claims fit into these categories and, hence, federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is properly invoked.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a declaratory action when no reviewable agency order yet exists under the specific review provision.

Bankamerica Corp. v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System · filed 1979-05-14

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

Section 1331 may provide the independent jurisdictional basis for an APA cause of action challenging an agency’s legal wrong even though the APA itself does not confer jurisdiction.

Committee for Full Employment v. Michael W. Blumenthal, Secretary of the Treasury · filed 1979-06-12

Rather, jurisdiction is grounded, ... on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976) (federal question jurisdiction).

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction for judicial review of federal agency action even though the Administrative Procedure Act does not independently grant jurisdiction.

Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle · filed 1979-06-29(a)

While Califano v. Sanders, 1977, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192, held that the APA is not an implied grant of federal subject matter jurisdiction, the Scott Paper rationale just as strongly supports holding jurisdiction available under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction to review agency action under the APA, while the APA's final-agency-action rule is a nonjurisdictional exhaustion requirement.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,925 Dresser Industries, Inc., a Corporation, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Certain Dresser E · filed 1979-07-30

Jurisdiction to review agency action under the APA is found in 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... 5 U.S.C. § 704 subjects to judicial review only those agency actions which are “made reviewable by statute” or which are “final”, however. This is not a jurisdictional requirement, but rather an exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement, subject to a few carefully limited exceptions.

Section 1331(a) gives district courts jurisdiction to review administrative decisions of the Secretary of the Interior.

Doria Mining & Engineering Corp. v. Morton · filed 1979-11-02(a)

The district courts have jurisdiction to review administrative decisions of the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction to review federal agency action under the APA when the plaintiff is adversely affected or aggrieved by reviewable agency action.

Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy · filed 1979-11-27

Since this court has found Coastal to be a person “adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action” and the Department’s decision to contract with Alexander Grant necessitating the release of trade secrets a reviewable agency action under § 10(a) of the APA jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331, rather than the Administrative Procedure Act, supplies subject-matter jurisdiction to review federal agency action, and the 1976 amendment removed the amount-in-controversy requirement for official-capacity actions against the federal government.

Wilder v. Prokop · filed 1988-05-10

The Supreme Court has clearly determined that subject-matter jurisdiction in these circumstances arises from 28 U.S.C. 1331 rather than from the APA which determines the scope of the review. The amendment of § 1331(a) in 1976 removed the requirement of a specified amount in controversy and carried forward the jurisdictional grant as to “any action brought against the United States, any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof in his official capacity.”

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction to review challenged federal agency action.

Burroughs Corp. v. Brown · filed 1980-01-03

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review the agency action challenged here.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to decide whether the Davis-Bacon Act applies to a federal construction project and to review the Labor Department's administrative decision.

Woodside Village, a Limited Partnership, and J. L. Johnston General Partner v. Secretary of United States… · filed 1980-01-04

It is clear that the District Court did have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to decide whether the Davis-Bacon Act was applicable to the instant project and jurisdiction to review the decision of the Wage Appeals Board of the Department of Labor.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over APA and constitutional damages claims, while APA Section 702 is not itself an independent source of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Millard Griffith, John Baker and Bernice Mays v. Bell-Whitley Community Action Agency · filed 1980-01-31

Section 1331 is the jurisdictional basis for the APA claim of appellants as well as for their damage claim. 5 U.S.C. § 702 is not an independent source of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331(a) gives a district court jurisdiction to review a decision of the Interior Board of Land Appeals.

Baker v. United States · filed 1980-02-11(a)

Baker applied for review of the IBLA decision in the district court which had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction for APA review of federal agencies' failure to perform duties imposed by federal records-management statutes.

American Friends Service Committee v. Webster · filed 1980-07-11

The Records Management Acts prescribe duties and responsibilities for GSA and other federal agencies, and failure to perform these duties gives rise to judicial review to redress such abuse of discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims that federal housing officials violated NEPA, federal housing law, and implementing regulations.

Aertsen v. Moon Landrieu, Etc. · filed 1980-12-11

Jurisdiction of this case exists under the “federal question” provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supports district-court review of a federal agency’s denial of a permit when the challenge arises under federal law.

Monongahela Power Co. v. Alexander · filed 1980-12-19

Jurisdiction is properly founded upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976) and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-03 (1976).

Section 1331(a) authorizes federal courts to review a challenge that federal agency action exceeds its statutory authorization, without a $10,000 amount requirement in suits against the United States after the 1976 amendment.

Missouri Ex Rel. Ashcroft v. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers · filed 1980-12-24(a)

In 1976, § 1331(a) was amended to delete the requirement that there be $10,000 in controversy in cases brought against the United States. ... Thus, federal courts have jurisdiction under § 1331(a) to review a challenge to federal agency action on the ground that it exceeds statutory authorization. ... This Court accordingly holds that it has jurisdiction over Count IV of plaintiffs’ complaint.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over an action seeking declaratory and injunctive review of federal Environmental Protection Agency inspections.

Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · filed 1981-01-12

The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter herein by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 5 U.S.C. § 702, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction to review informal federal agency decisionmaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.

No Oilport! v. Carter · filed 1981-02-09

The court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The actions are primarily review of informal agency decision making, as authorized in 5 U.S.C. § 706.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency’s denial of a federal ocean-dumping permit.

Bergen County Utilities Authority v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · filed 1981-02-10

The within complaint raises the issues of whether the denial by EPA of plaintiff’s application for an ocean-dumping permit was arbitrary and capricious and whether it is appropriate for this court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering EPA to issue an ocean-dumping permit to BCUA. ... Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the federal mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

Section 1331(a) supports judicial review of federal administrative action alleging constitutional and Administrative Procedure Act violations.

Mechanics National Bank v. United States Department of Housing · filed 1981-02-27(a)

Plaintiffs complain that HUD withdrew their status as approved mortgagees in a federal housing program in violation of their rights to due process and equal protection, and in violation of the rights accorded them by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702-06. Jurisdiction is rightly predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to determine whether a federal agency decision is reviewable when the action arises under a federal statute and is brought against a federal officer in an official capacity.

Lewis v. Andrus · filed 1981-04-24

The instant case arises under 25 U.S.C. § 373, the Federal Statute governing the determination of heirship to the restricted estate of an Indian who died testate, and is brought against an employee of the United States acting in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior. Therefore, under the express language of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has jurisdiction to determine whether or not the AU’s decision is reviewable.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction to review whether a federal energy agency acted within its authority, arbitrarily or capriciously, or without required procedures.

Montana Power Co. v. Edwards · filed 1981-05-18(a)

Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a), 1361 and 42 U.S.C. § 7192. ... I can consider whether the agency acted within the scope of its authority; whether the agency acted in an arbitrary or capricious fashion; and whether the agency followed appropriate procedures.

Section 1331(a) supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over an action challenging a federal occupational-safety agency’s inspection authority.

Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. v. Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety · filed 1981-07-07(a)

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) and personal jurisdiction over the parties.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over federal statutory challenges to federal offshore oil-and-gas leasing decisions.

State of Cal. by and Through Brown v. Watt · filed 1981-08-18

Requesting injunctive and declaratory relief, plaintiffs claim that defendants have violated five federal statutes in offering for competitive bidding certain oil and gas leases on tracts located in the Santa Maria Basin. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal question jurisdiction).

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over constitutional and federal statutory challenges to federal transportation contracting regulations.

M. C. West, Inc. v. Lewis · filed 1981-08-24

Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction against federal and state officials to restrain them from enforcing the Department of Transportation’s regulations and a declaratory judgment that the regulations are unconstitutional. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

As amended in 1980, Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over federal judicial review of a Small Business Administration size determination.

P & B SERVICES, INC. v. Cardenas · filed 1981-11-09

Jurisdiction exists under ... as amended by Pub.L. 96-486 (Dec. 1, 1980).

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction to review federal agency approval of mining activity under federal environmental and public-land laws.

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inc. v. Watson · filed 1981-11-13(a)

THIS CAUSE comes before the court on review of defendants’ approval of certain mining activities within the Misty Fjords National Monument. The court’s jurisdiction arises under the laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331, together with the Food Stamp Act’s review provision, supplies jurisdiction over a store’s challenge to federal disqualification from the food-stamp program.

Yaghnam v. United States · filed 1981-11-18

Plaintiff challenges the decision of the Food and Nutrition Service of the Department of Agriculture, disqualifying plaintiff’s market from participation in the food stamp program for one year. ... This court has jurisdiction under 7 U.S.C. § 2023 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction to review federal transportation agency proceedings against federal officials in their official capacities when a relevant statute exists.

Benton Franklin Riverfront Trailway & Bridge Committee v. Lewis · filed 1981-10-21(a)

Jurisdiction to review 49 U.S.C. § 1653(f) proceedings exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) which permits actions against federal defendants in their ... capacity where a relevant statute exists. ... Accordingly, 4(f) determinations by the Administration of FHWA are reviewable agency actions since such proceedings are not otherwise committed to agency discretion, and the Department of Transportation Act does not otherwise preclude judicial review.

Section 1331 provides general federal-question jurisdiction over challenges to federal programs based on the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment unless a specific statute prohibits review.

American Federation of Government Employees v. Nimmo · filed 1982-04-15

This case involves a challenge to a federal program based on the Administrative Procedure Act and the fifth amendment. The court, therefore, has general federal question jurisdiction over this action in the absence of a specific jurisdictional prohibition.

Section 1331(a), rather than the Administrative Procedure Act, supplies federal-court jurisdiction to review agency action.

McCartin v. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chairperson, U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Edward Merca · filed 1982-04-22(a)

On appeal, McCartin appears to contend that he is entitled to obtain judicial review of the agency action by which he is aggrieved. On this abstract proposition, he is correct. While the Administrative Procedure Act does not confer jurisdiction on the federal courts to review agency action, it is now clear that 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (1976) does.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a disappointed bidder's nonmonetary challenge to federal agency action when the bidder alleges violation of a federal regulation, has standing, and § 702 waives sovereign immunity.

Georgia Gazette Publishing Co. v. United States Department of Defense · filed 1983-01-17

Therefore, because the plaintiff: (1) alleges violation of a regulation which has the force of law; (2) possesses standing; and (3) alleges a violation of § 702 which in turn waives sovereign immunity, I find this Court has jurisdiction of plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over an ultra vires challenge to federal agency conduct outside the formal administrative process when resolving the challenge requires de novo factfinding rather than review of an agency order.

ITT World Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission · filed 1983-02-01

We conclude that the district court's reservations about its jurisdiction were unfounded and that it erred in its rulings on standing and ripeness. ... We have emphasized that the jurisdiction of the district courts is properly invoked where de novo judicial factfinding is necessary for a fair examination of the disputed issues. ... Rather than call for review of an agency action that has itself been embodied in a record, the ultra vires count requires scrutiny of conduct occurring outside the formal administrative process.

Section 1331(a), as amended in 1976, confers jurisdiction to review federal agency action subject only to congressional statutes precluding review.

Thompson v. Department of the Treasury · filed 1982-12-29(a)

Clearly the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the original petition; i.e., it has authority to review the agency action denying relief from federal firearms disability. When Congress amended Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) in 1976 to eliminate the amount in controversy requirement for maintenance of “any [1331] action brought against the United States, any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof in his official capacity,” ... to confer jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action.”

Section 1331 supplies district-court jurisdiction to review a final agency decision within the limitations of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Colorado Department of Social Services v. Department of Health & Human Services · filed 1983-01-25

This court’s jurisdiction to undertake judicial review of a final agency decision within the limitations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject-matter jurisdiction to review agency actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1316(d).

Connecticut, Department of Income Maintenance v. Schweiker · filed 1983-02-17

Review of actions under section 1316(d) lies in the district court, which has subject matter jurisdiction by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Supp. IV 1980) (amending 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976)).

Section 1331 provides district-court jurisdiction to review federal agency action when no explicit review provision applies and the governing statute neither commits the decision wholly to agency discretion nor otherwise precludes review.

Bell v. New Jersey · filed 1983-05-31

The presumption that review is available, ... coupled with the absence of any indication in the statute that'the decision is committed wholly to the discretion of the agency or that review is otherwise precluded, ... leads to the conclusion that the district courts would have had jurisdiction under the general grant of jurisdiction over cases involving federal questions, 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (1976 ed., Supp. V).

Section 1331 permits APA review of federal agency action unless a statute precludes review, including review of the Bureau of Indian Affairs' refusal to recognize a tribal council.

Goodface v. Grassrope · filed 1983-05-31

We hold that the district court did have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 to review, pursuant to the APA, the action taken by the BIA in refusing to recognize either tribal council. Although the APA may not be used as an independent grant of subject matter jurisdiction to review agency actions, the Supreme Court stated in Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105, 97 S.Ct. 980, 984, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977), that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 confers general jurisdiction on federal courts to review federal agency actions “subject only to preclusion-of-review statutes.” We know of no statute precluding judicial review of BIA actions, and therefore we determine that the district court could review the agency action under the arbitrary or capricious standard enunciated in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(A).

Section 1331 together with the Administrative Procedure Act gives a district court jurisdiction over an equitable challenge to Farmers Home Administration foreclosure action.

Jacoby v. Schuman · filed 1983-06-14

This Court has jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706(2)(A).

Section 1331 can support district-court nonstatutory review of an NRC refusal to initiate licensing proceedings when no statute assigns review to a particular court.

Lorion v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission · filed 1983-07-26

district court review of the NRC's section 2.206 decisions could be predicated on the general federal question jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Supp. V 1981) and, possibly, under the jurisdictional grant regarding acts of commerce, 28 U.S.C. § 1337 (1976), as well.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over claims for nonmonetary relief under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Hondros v. United States Civil Service Commission · filed 1983-10-13

Consequently, Smith’s claims for nonmonetary relief were properly before the district court of 1974.

Section 1331 does not permit pre-enforcement review of a tentative, nonfinal agency coverage opinion when later administrative and subpoena-enforcement remedies remain available.

Missouri Pacific Employes' Hospital Ass'n v. Donovan · filed 1983-10-19

Applying the standard to the instant case leads to the conclusion that the agency action is not sufficiently ripe for judicial review. ... Based on the fact that the letter appears to express an informal, preliminary opinion of the acting Area Administrator rather than a definitive agency ruling, this Court concludes that the letter does not constitute final agency action.

Section 1331 places original jurisdiction over constitutional and Administrative Procedure Act challenges to federal agency action in the district court rather than the court of appeals.

Nasser v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board, Etc. · filed 1984-01-20

Nasser also asserts jurisdiction under the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution and the federal Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702. Jurisdiction is not proper on either of these bases because both such actions would have to originate in the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 independently supplies jurisdiction over a due-process challenge to an immigration agency’s refusal to consider a petition for remission or mitigation.

Clow v. Nelson · filed 1984-02-13

In the case at bar mandamus jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 due to the Complaint’s allegations that the INS improperly found that it could not consider plaintiff’s petition and its request for an order requiring the INS to exercise its authority and discretion. Additionally, I find that jurisdiction can be independently predicated on “general federal question” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction to require a federal agency to perform duties imposed by law, with the scope of review governed by Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Cardoza v. COM. FUTURES TRADING COM'N · filed 1984-03-26

We therefore hold that the CFTC's decision not to review disciplinary action by an exchange is subject to judicial review. ... [a] court has jurisdiction under either § 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 does not support a claim challenging federal agency regulations before the agency has taken action under those regulations.

Investors Savings Ass'n v. Federal Savings & Loan Insurance · filed 1984-04-03

The Plaintiffs have moved to amend their complaint to add 28 U.S.C. § 1331 asserting that they have a cause of action concerning the validity of regulations. Again, until the Defendants have taken action under these regulations, the Plaintiffs cannot state a cause of action on this issue. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to decide whether the Refugee Act and its regulations require the INS to notify aliens of their right to seek asylum before exclusion proceedings.

Jean v. Nelson · filed 1984-05-04

In this case, plaintiffs' claim could be heard by the district court pursuant to its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, since petitioners are seeking a determination whether the Refugee Act of 1980 and its accompanying regulations require the INS to notify aliens of their right to apply for political asylum prior to the commencement of exclusion proceedings before an immigration judge.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over claims that federal officials violated the APA and federal statutes governing National Park Service management.

Conservation Law Foundation of New England, Inc. v. Clark · filed 1984-06-27

The matter in controversy, therefore, “arises under the ... laws ... of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and federal question jurisdiction is appropriate.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to review agency action when the governing statute places that review exclusively in a court of appeals.

Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v. Hodel · filed 1984-07-18

The complaint invokes 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 701. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is based on the theory that jurisdiction to review actions of the Secretary of Energy in respect to administration of the Act is vested exclusively in the Court of Appeals. ... For all these reasons the Court concludes that, although the issue is not free from doubt, the Court of Appeals does have exclusive jurisdiction here, and that the motion to dismiss should be granted.

Section 1331 does not give a district court concurrent jurisdiction over a claim affecting future agency review when a special statute commits review of the agency’s action exclusively to a court of appeals.

In Re Telecommunications Research and Action Center · filed 1984-10-24

The principal point of this decision is to make clear that where a statute commits review of agency action to the Court of Appeals, any suit seeking relief that might affect the Circuit Court's future jurisdiction is subject to the exclusive review of the Court of Appeals.

Section 1331 does not give a district court concurrent jurisdiction over a claim affecting future agency review when a special statute commits review of the agency’s action exclusively to a court of appeals.

Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. Federal Communications Commission · filed 1984-10-24

It would be anomalous to hold that this grant of authority only strips the District Court of general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982) when the Circuit Court has present jurisdiction under a special review statute, but not when the Circuit Court has immediate jurisdiction under the All Writs Act in aid of its future statutory review power.

Section 1331 supports an injunctive action under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging agency action as unlawful or arbitrary and capricious.

General Electric Company v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission · filed 1984-12-21

Either way, there would be a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act redressable in this injunctive action.

Section 1331, rather than the Administrative Procedure Act, supplies jurisdiction to review agency action unless Congress has precluded review.

Rowse v. Platte Valley Livestock, Inc. · filed 1985-03-14

The Administrative Procedure Act is not an independent jurisdictional provision; rather, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “subject only to preclusion-of-review statutes created or retained by Congress, [confers] jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action.”

Section 1331(a), together with the Administrative Procedure Act and the Mining in the Parks Act, permits federal-court review of an administrative decision invalidating mining claims.

Alaska Limestone Corp. v. Hodel · filed 1985-04-12(a)

In addition to challenging the procedures followed by the government in this case, Alaska Limestone has attacked the substantive merits of the administrative determination of invalidity reached below. In reviewing this administrative decision, jurisdiction may be conferred under § 1910 of the Mining in the Parks Act ... as well as under the Administrative Procedure Act ... and 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction for APA review where the complaint sounds in tort, lacks an underlying federal statutory or constitutional claim, and the Federal Tort Claims Act provides the exclusive remedy.

United States v. Olin Corp. · filed 1985-04-04

Moreover, in cases cited by plaintiffs where the plaintiffs alleged jurisdiction pursuant to the APA and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the underlying complaints were premised on either a federal statutory or constitutional claim. ... Clearly, there is a distinction between alleging jurisdiction under these statutes based on a federal question and on tort. The Tort Claims Act is the exclusive remedy for claims sounding in tort, ... and the APA confers no jurisdiction on this court to grant relief where another statute expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought, as does the FTCA in this case. 28 U.S.C. § 2679.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction for APA review of agency action when review is not precluded and the plaintiffs satisfy standing requirements.

National Wildlife Federation v. Clark · filed 1985-06-13

Federal court jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, provided that judicial review is not precluded and that the plaintiffs satisfy the requirements of standing, as set forth by the Supreme Court.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to review Bureau of Indian Affairs action under the APA when no statute precludes review.

Runs After v. United States · filed 1985-06-27

We agree with appellants that federal district courts do have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 to review, pursuant to the APA, the BIA action.

Section 1331 supplies district-court jurisdiction to review final federal administrative action when no statute prescribes a special review procedure.

Gustav E. Beerly, Trustee of the Gustav E. Beerly Trust v. Department of the Treasury · filed 1985-07-29

When no statute prescribes the procedure for judicial review of a particular administrative action, review is in the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal-question jurisdictional statute, see Administrative Procedure Act, § 10(b), 5 U.S.C. § 703; ... with a right of appeal to the court of appeals. That was the route followed here.

Under APA Section 703, §§ 1331 and 1337 provide jurisdiction for declaratory and injunctive review only when the adverse agency action is ripe for review.

Nc St. Bd. of Regis. for Pro. Eng. v. FTC · filed 1985-08-15

If the adverse administrative decision is ripe for review, § 703 allows a litigant to move under §§ 1331 and 1337 for declaratory and injunctive relief. These latter two sections then provide a court with jurisdiction to entertain a suit in appropriate circumstances.

Section 1331 ordinarily cannot be used to bypass Congress's prescribed scheme for agency review, but it permits an action when an agency acts in brazen defiance of its statutory authority.

North Carolina State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers & Land Surveyors v. Federal Trade Commission · filed 1985-08-15

Consequently, a party may not obtain review of an agency decision by circumventing the Administrative Procedure Act’s ... review provisions via a request for declaratory or injunctive relief ... If an agency acts in “brazen defiance” of its statutory authorization, courts will entertain a cause of action based on § 1331 or § 1337 jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction for nonmonetary review of final federal agency decisions when Administrative Procedure Act Section 702 waives sovereign immunity.

National Wildlife Federation v. Burford · filed 1985-09-03

The matters raised by plaintiffs arise under federal law, and jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court is empowered by 28 U.S.C. § 2201 to issue the requested declaratory relief. Plaintiffs seek review of final decisions of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior pursuant to the judicial review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. Section 702, of the APA waives sovereign immunity to suit where a person is “adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of the relevant statute” and seeks relief other than money damages.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over claims against the Secretary of the Treasury arising under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment.

Rucker v. Secretary of Treasury of United States · filed 1986-02-26

Plaintiffs claims against the Secretary of the Treasury arise under 5 U.S.C. § 704 (Administrative Procedure Act) and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Jurisdiction of those claims is conferred on the court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Question).

Section 1331, together with Administrative Procedure Act review under 5 U.S.C. § 706, supplies jurisdiction to review an FDA drug-approval decision.

Norwich Eaton Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bowen · filed 1986-03-03

A. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. § 706.

Section 1331 may support district-court jurisdiction over an interlocutory agency-delay claim when no future statutory review in a court of appeals can be affected.

Local 1928, American Federation of Government Employees v. Federal Labor Relations Authority · filed 1986-03-17

Referring to ... the court indicated that district court jurisdiction over an interlocutory claim such as one alleging unreasonable agency delay could be premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, there is no future statutory review that can be affected.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when a controversy’s pivotal legal issues require interpretation of federal statutes.

Wilkenson v. Dept. of Interior of United States · filed 1986-05-02

Jurisdiction over the controversy is provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the pivotal legal issues involve interpretation of pertinent federal statutes.

Section 1331, together with the APA right of action and NEPA, supplies jurisdiction over a procedural challenge to federal agency action.

Jones v. Gordon · filed 1986-06-18

We need not reach that issue because jurisdiction over Jones's action arose from the combined operation of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, NEPA, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Sec. 10(a), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 702. Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, the district courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the laws of the United States.

An action against a federal agency or officer seeking review of allegedly unauthorized or unconstitutional official action arises under federal law for Section 1331 purposes unless another statute precludes review.

Lopez v. Aran · filed 1986-07-11

An action against a Federal agency or officer seeking review of allegedly unauthorized or unconstitutional agency action or power to act is deemed to arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States for purposes of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, unless some other statute is interpreted as precluding such review.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction under the APA to review a Board of Indian Appeals decision when no statute specifically precludes review.

Sharon v. United States · filed 1986-10-03

Inasmuch as no statute specifically precludes review, the district court enjoys jurisdiction to review Sharon's appeal from the decision of the Board of Indian Appeals under the APA and section 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction to review Urban Mass Transportation Administration action under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Green v. Urban Mass Transportation Administration · filed 1986-11-03

The Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1331. The defendant UMTA’s actions are reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. section 702 (1982).

Section 1331 generally supplies jurisdiction to review federal agency action unless Congress clearly indicates that review is precluded.

Seabulk Transmarine I, Inc. v. Dole · filed 1986-10-09

In the absence of a clear showing of legislative intent to the contrary, federal courts generally have jurisdiction to review any agency action.

Section 1331, NEPA, and APA § 702 provide an independent jurisdictional basis for a suit seeking to compel an agency to comply with NEPA, without requiring exhaustion of another statute’s administrative remedies.

Merrell v. Lee Thomas, and Ciba-Geigy Corporation, Defendants-Intervenors · filed 1986-12-31

Faced with a similar suit against a different agency, we concluded that a plaintiff was not obliged to exhaust his statutory remedies, because 28 U.S.C. § 1331, NEPA, and section 10(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702, combined to create an independent ground of jurisdiction. ... On that basis, we reach the merits in this case.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction to review a military records-correction decision when the claim arises under federal law and no statute precludes judicial review.

Blassingame v. Secretary Of The Navy · filed 1987-01-26(a)

We find that Blassingame presents a federal question under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331(a) since his claim arises under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1552(b), and there is no statute precluding judicial review. ... Therefore, we agree with the district court's implicit finding that it had subject matter jurisdiction to review the Correction Board decision.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction to review a military records-correction board decision when the claim arises under federal law and no statute precludes judicial review.

Blassingame v. Secretary of Navy · filed 1987-01-26

We find that Blassingame presents a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) since his claim arises under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), and there is no statute precluding judicial review.

Section 1331 permits a district court to review the constitutionality of a federal agency's statutory suspension scheme even when review of the individual suspension order is disputed.

Mallen v. Federal Deposit Insurance · filed 1987-02-17

However, it is not contended that the Court has no jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of the statutory scheme. The Court concludes that it does have jurisdiction over ... the constitutional issues under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.

The 1976 amendments made Section 1331 the jurisdictional vehicle for nonmonetary claims challenging unlawful federal-agency action, while APA Section 702 waives sovereign immunity for those claims but not for monetary relief.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Departmental Grant Appeals Board of United States Department of Health & Human Services · filed 1987-03-30

Subject matter jurisdiction and waiver of sovereign immunity were granted to claims for nonmonetary relief for unlawful actions of federal agencies, or their officers or employees, by the 1976 amendments to 5 U.S.C. § 702 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Section 1331, as amended, abolished the amount-in-controversy requirement for claims against the United States. Section 702, not itself an independent source of jurisdiction, waived the defense of sovereign immunity for claims arising under § 1331 not involving monetary relief.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction to review an administrative decision denying temporary relief from a federal surface-mining violation and cessation order.

Patrick Coal Corp. v. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement · filed 1987-05-22

The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 1276 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction to review an Interior Department decision concerning restrictions in a federal mineral patent.

Barnes v. Hodel · filed 1987-06-09

Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331.

Section 1331 does not make nonfinal agency action reviewable; jurisdiction becomes proper only after the responsible agency has issued its decision.

American Colloid Co. v. Hodel · filed 1988-12-22

In its complaint, plaintiff recites a host of statutory bases which it maintains give this Court jurisdiction to retain the case; most notably, the diversity of citizenship statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the administrative mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, the declaratory judgments statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. ... Only after the Secretary of Interior has had an opportunity to render his decision on the patent application would jurisdiction be proper in this Court. As it stands, there is no final agency action which is reviewable under the APA.

Section 1331 generally authorizes district-court review of final agency action together with the Administrative Procedure Act, but it does not support review of nonfinal agency action.

Burnham Corp. v. Adamkus · filed 1990-10-25

The EPA letters to Burnham do not satisfy the SOCAL’s test for final agency action. Thus, the challenged agency action is not “final agency action” within the meaning of section 704 of the APA. The only possible basis for this Court’s jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which generally authorizes district court review of final agency action in conjunction with the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. The agency action here is not final, and thus is not within the scope of actions that are made reviewable by a district court. Hence, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the challenged agency action.

Section 1331 does not authorize merits review of an executive security-clearance decision merely because constitutional violations are alleged, although courts may review compliance with required procedures.

Hill v. Department of Air Force, and Paul S. Britt Paul J. Vallerie · filed 1988-04-11

To summarize, the district court improperly based its jurisdiction upon constitutional grounds and, in that connection, evaluated the motives and the merits of the agency’s actions with respect to Hill’s security clearance. ... The district court lacked jurisdiction on the grounds enumerated in its decision. The court did have jurisdiction in general with respect to whether procedures were violated, but had no authority to order a reinstatement of Hill’s clearance, or to grant the additional relief contained in the preliminary injunction.

Section 1331 does not authorize a district court to review an executive agency's discretionary security-clearance investigation or revocation, and framing the challenge as a constitutional deprivation does not avoid that bar.

Williams v. Reilly · filed 1990-05-17

Accordingly the Court has no subject matter jurisdiction to review DLA’s decision to investigate or revoke Williams’ security clearance. ... This threshold jurisdictional determination is not affected by the fact that the challenge is made on the grounds of a constitutional deprivation. ... This Court cannot review DLA’s decision to investigate or revoke Williams’ security clearance.

Section 1331 does not authorize judicial review of the merits of an executive decision denying access to a security-sensitive area when the decision requires the same predictive national-security judgment as a security-clearance determination.

Beattie v. United States · filed 1991-03-15

The decision whether to allow access to the Air Force One area is the same type and quality and requires the same predictive judgment as the decision whether to grant a security clearance. ... This court concludes it cannot judicially review the merits of the Air Force’s decision to deny plaintiff access to this secured area. This court is in no position to second-guess that decision. No jurisdiction exists to entertain such a challenge.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law even when the Administrative Procedure Act does not cover the claim.

Kraemer-Katz v. United States Public Health Service · filed 1994-12-13

The court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 over claims arising under federal law. ... APA coverage, however, is not necessary for subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies district-court jurisdiction for reviewable APA agency action seeking specific relief when the Claims Court offers no adequate remedy, despite the APA’s lack of an independent jurisdictional grant.

Olenhouse v. Commodity Credit Corp. · filed 1991-05-10

Thus, the existence of jurisdiction under § 1331 refutes the contention that the questionable jurisdiction of the Claims Court in this case is exclusive.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over procurement challenges arising under federal acquisition regulations and federal common law even though the Administrative Procedure Act does not independently grant jurisdiction.

Applications Research Corp. v. Naval Air Development Center · filed 1990-12-04

Section 702 does not, however, provide an independent grant of subject matter jurisdiction to review agency action. ... Nevertheless, the court does have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (West Supp.1990): Counts I and II “arise under" not only the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs) codified in 48 C.F.R., chapter 1, but also the federal common law of government procurement.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over an Administrative Procedure Act claim because the APA provides a cause of action but is not itself an independent jurisdictional grant.

Johnson v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (Hud) · filed 1990-10-29

We need not decide whether the Preservation Act impliedly grants plaintiffs a cause of action to enforce its requirements because they have a cause of action against HUD under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 702 (1988) ("APA"). ... Federal subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' APA claim is conferred by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (1988).

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction for an Administrative Procedure Act challenge even when the substantive statute creates no private right of action.

Glacier Park Foundation v. Watt · filed 1981-12-10

This argument overlooks the statement in Califano that, while the APA does not in itself provide jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does. A plaintiff need not establish a private right of action under a statute before it may sue under the APA.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to review federal agency action involving the interaction of an Indian lease, federal regulations, and statutory powers of the Secretary of the Interior.

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe v. Watt · filed 1981-12-21

However, this case involves not only an interpretation of the lease but also the question whether the lease could be terminated by the Tribe unilaterally, without any action on the part of the Secretary. Resolution of the latter issue involves the interrelationship of the lease, the federal regulations and the powers conferred on the Secretary of Interior by 25 U.S.C. § 415. Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers jurisdiction on Federal Courts to review agency action.

Section 1331 together with the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes district-court review of final agency action lacking another adequate remedy, a broader category than an appellate court's review of agency orders.

Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. National Transportation Safety Board · filed 1982-01-28

The district courts, however, have authority to review “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy,” 5 U.S.C. § 704, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This latter term, we believe, is broader than “order” and allows district courts broader scope to review, where the need to develop a record expeditiously is critical, as it is here.

Section 1331(a), rather than the Administrative Procedure Act itself, confers district-court jurisdiction to review administrative decisions of the Secretary of the Interior after exhaustion.

Kennerly v. United States · filed 1982-02-10(a)

Plaintiff exhausted all administrative remedies prior to filing the complaint. Hence, this court is authorized to judicially review the decision of the Interior Board of Indian Appeals ... pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... the United States Supreme Court held that jurisdiction to review administrative decisions rendered by the Secretary of the Interior is conferred on the federal district courts by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), and not by the Administrative Procedure Act.

Section 1331, together with the Administrative Procedure Act's waiver of sovereign immunity, permits a district court to entertain a claim for nonmonetary relief alleging unlawful federal agency action.

Lehner v. United States · filed 1982-09-03

The district court also had jurisdiction over the prayer in her contract claims that the FHA return to her the property sold to the House of Affirmation. As we have explained: “The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) provides for judicial review of agency action and a waiver of sovereign immunity in an action for relief other than money damages that states a claim that a federal agency or officer failed to act as required in his official capacity. 5 U.S.C. § 702.” Rowe v. United States, 633 F.2d at 801 (footnotes omitted). When coupled with the grant of jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the APA paved the way for the district court to entertain her equitable prayer. Id.

Section 1331 together with the APA permits review of a Corps decision granting a Clean Water Act § 404 permit when the Act's citizen-suit provision supplies no adequate remedy.

Hough v. Marsh · filed 1982-11-19

For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) and the APA, the plaintiffs may seek review of the Corps’ decision to grant a section 404 permit.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over claims seeking Administrative Procedure Act review of agency action, subject to statutes that preclude review.

Rogers v. United States · filed 1983-01-28

They seek review of Interior's action under a provision of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(D), which authorizes reviewing courts to set aside agency actions found to be "without observance of procedure required by law." Jurisdiction of the APA remedial claim is conferred by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. See Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105, 97 S.Ct. 980, 984, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977) (jurisdiction of APA actions under section 1331 subject only to preclusion-of-review statutes).

Section 1331 permits nonstatutory review of final agency action even without a special review procedure, but an action against the United States also requires a sovereign-immunity waiver.

Food Town Stores, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · filed 1983-05-23

Food Town’s claims concerning the conflict between 29 C.F.R. § 1601.16(a) and 29 U.S.C. § 161 and the EEOC’s resulting refusal to issue the subpoena clearly present a question arising under a federal statute within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). Such federal question jurisdiction is not defeated by the absence of a special statutory procedure for obtaining judicial review; 29 U.S.C. § 1331(a) grants jurisdiction in the district courts for “nonstatutory review” actions. ... Absent such a statutory waiver of immunity, the district court was without 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) federal question jurisdiction. ... Sovereign immunity thus is waived, and the district court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 supports APA review when arbitrary and capricious federal agency action is pivotal to the plaintiff's claim, unless the federal allegation is clearly insubstantial; jurisdictional insubstantiality demands more than failure to state a claim.

Donmi of Milford, Inc. v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development · filed 1983-06-23

It must be more clear that the allegations are without merit to dismiss for lack of § 1331 jurisdiction than to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). ... The mere fact that the Constitution or a federal law must be interpreted or applied in the course of a case does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction. The right or immunity out of which the cause of action arises must itself have been federally created or granted ... However, these technical questions go to whether HUD acted arbitrarily under the APA, and that is a question “arising under” the laws of the United States.

Section 1331(a) authorizes nonstatutory judicial review of final federal agency action presenting a federal statutory question even when no special statutory review procedure exists.

Food Town Stores, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · filed 1983-06-28(a)

Food Town's claims concerning the conflict between 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1601.16(a) and 29 U.S.C. Sec. 161 and the EEOC's resulting refusal to issue the subpoena clearly present a question arising under a federal statute within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331(a). Such federal question jurisdiction is not defeated by the absence of a special statutory procedure for obtaining judicial review; 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1331(a) grants jurisdiction in the district courts for "nonstatutory review" actions.