28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a federal claim appears on the face of the complaint.

(PS) Dupont v. Levy · filed 2024-10-29

Giving plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt at this stage of the litigation, the court concludes that they have alleged a federal question on the face of their complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

Singh v. Singh · filed 2024-10-29

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... Plaintiff has not pleaded federal question jurisdiction on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff’s complaint to state a cause of action arising under federal law.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lewis · filed 2024-11-12

Thus, the plaintiff’s complaint must state a cause of action arising under federal law.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to raise a matter arising under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Gramercy East Apts v. Neal · filed 2024-11-25

The complaint does not reference or cite any matter “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint, on its face, presents a Fifth Amendment takings claim.

Toledo Memorial Park and Mausoleum v. City of Sylvania · filed 2024-12-02

Upon review of Plaintiff’s complaint, I conclude that, on its face, the complaint sounds in Fifth ... Amendment takings law. I will therefore exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s motion to strike here.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to present a discernible question arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

V.Y. v. STATE OF NJ · filed 2024-12-10

To invoke federal question subject-matter jurisdiction, the action must arise under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C, § 1331. ... Because it is unclear from the face of the Complaint whether a federal question exists, Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden in establishing federal question subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint relies exclusively on state law.

Ferrer v. Liburdi · filed 2024-12-11

The Complaint relies exclusively on state law and therefore, no federal question jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a federal claim appears on the face of the complaint.

Blue Bay Ventures LLC v. John Buys Bay Homes LLC · filed 2024-12-16

“The general rule, referred to as the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ is that a civil action arises under federal law for purposes of § 1331 when a federal question appears on the face of the complaint.” ... Thus, as a federal question exists on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint, removal was proper.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; a state-law negligence claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Albritton, Jr. v. City of Cleveland · filed 2025-01-06

Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege a discernible cause of action arising under federal law. Rather, the only discernible cause of action alleged on the face of his complaint is negligence, which is a cause of action arising under state tort law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the pleading for federal-question jurisdiction.

Perkins v. Biden · filed 2025-01-14

There is additionally no clear federal question on the face of the pleading for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to present a claim arising under federal law or a right to relief that necessarily depends on a substantial federal question.

Warfield v. Tucker · filed 2025-01-20

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Plaintiff’s cause of action must “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) does not state a claim under any federal law. Nor does Plaintiff’s right to relief in this case hinge on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; the insufficient ECOA claim here did not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Jackson v. RKW Residential · filed 2025-01-30

Accordingly, no federal question jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; unsupported claims of tribal leadership alone do not establish one.

Bey v. Mysteria LLC · filed 2025-02-04

However, the face of the Complaint indicates no federal question jurisdiction over this matter under any of these listed legal bases. Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated documents stating that he is the chief of a Native American tribe, do not invoke federal question jurisdiction alone.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the complaint; checking the federal-question box on a cover sheet does not establish jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal issue.

Wea v. Carvajal · filed 2025-02-04

On page 3 of the civil cover sheet, Plaintiff checked the “Federal question” box on his Complaint, but nothing in his Complaint references any federal statutes, federal treaties, and/or provisions of the United States Constitution that are at issue in this case.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint expressly relies on federal law as grounds for relief.

Struss v. Nebraska Furniture Mart · filed 2025-02-13

In this case, the federal question is presented on the face of Struss’s complaint because Struss explicitly relies on the FCRA/FACTA—federal statutes providing the relief he seeks—as well as his right to due process under the United States Constitution as the grounds for his claims. ... Thus, Struss’s action was properly removed based on federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plausibly pleaded federal question on the face of the complaint.

Kersey v. Deal Mayor · filed 2025-02-19

There is no federal question plausibly pleaded on the face of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the Complaint fails to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement to establish federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a criminal statute with no private civil remedy supplies no valid basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Shaik v. Tokmedia Enterprises LLC · filed 2025-03-08

Federal question jurisdiction exists “only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 1331). ... However, the Wire Fraud Statute is a criminal provision and does not create or imply any civil remedy. ... As such, Plaintiff does not plead any valid basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when a complaint presents a federal constitutional claim on its face.

Portes v. City of Doral · filed 2025-03-11

Here, the face of the Complaint presents a federal question – namely, a purported violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a removed unlawful detainer action when the state court complaint presents no federal question.

(PS)(UD) NewRez LLC v. Ussery · filed 2025-03-21

Accordingly, the court finds that Defendant Ussery has not established this court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action based on federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to be apparent from the underlying complaint; a state-law eviction claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Lewis · filed 2025-04-08

The underlying complaint does not establish either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. First, the complaint demonstrates that this case is a state law eviction action, over which a federal court does not have jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s claims do not implicate federal law.

Institute for Legislative Analysis v. Schlapp · filed 2025-04-11

Plaintiff does not present any claims that implicate federal law, nor does Defendant allege that any of Plaintiff’s claims implicate federal law. ... Accordingly, federal question jurisdiction has not been established in this case.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s federal counterclaim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Ward v. Mustafa · filed 2025-04-18

Federal question jurisdiction is determined “by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” ... Another judge of this Court has previously found that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the same state action, and any federal counterclaim Defendants seek to bring does not alter that framework.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s allegations do not support a federal claim.

Greene v. Next Door Medical Network Inc · 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 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; allegations from which the court cannot discern a federal question do not establish jurisdiction.

BEY v. COMBS · filed 2025-05-01

“Federal question jurisdiction exists only if a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint.” ... Even under the liberal reading that this Court gives the Complaint, see Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94, the Court is unable to discern a federal question from these allegations.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; a defendant’s federal defense or claim cannot establish jurisdiction.

State of Hawaii v. Pedro · filed 2025-05-02

Subject-matter jurisdiction based on a federal question cannot be based on a defense or claim raised by a defendant, but it must “be disclosed on the face of the complaint.”

Section 1331 requires the complaint to raise a question governed by federal law.

Phillips v. Progressive Insurance Co. · filed 2025-05-12

Here, there is simply no indication in the Complaint that federal law or the constitution would govern Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint on its face raises a claim under the U.S. Constitution or federal law.

Fierro v. Trabaudo · filed 2025-06-04

Federal questions include claims arising under the United States Constitution or federal law. ... The Court therefore finds that the removal was proper because a federal question is clear on the face of Plaintiff’s Opening Pleading and amended pleadings.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the complaint; a reference to federal law in a later brief does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

Meyer v. Hatteras Investment Partners, L.P. · filed 2025-06-04

The mere reference by Plaintiffs to a duty arising under federal law in a later brief is inadequate to create original subject matter jurisdiction in this court.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under the Constitution or federal law; a fleeting reference to due process without identifying a federal right is insufficient.

Johnson v. Bingham Blocks · filed 2025-06-17

The Court also finds that federal question jurisdiction is lacking, as Plaintiff does not assert claims arising under the Constitution or federal law. Plaintiff makes a fleeting reference to “due process violations” but does not specifically identify any federal law or constitutional right Defendants violated.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of an application to vacate an arbitration award under FAA Sections 9 and 10; the court cannot look through to the underlying dispute.

Wheatfall v. HEB Grocery · filed 2025-06-18

After Badgerow, Courts may not “look through” a Section 9 and 10 FAA action to establish federal question jurisdiction based on the underlying dispute. Because Wheatfall’s complaint does not raise a federal question on its face, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint raises a federal claim; allegations that fail to state a federal claim do not establish that jurisdiction.

Nelson v. Bill Hood Auto Group · filed 2025-06-26

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint does not set forth a federal RICO claim or raise any federal question. This Court therefore does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims, and they must be dismissed.

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

Beavers v. Elliott Lodging, Ltd. · filed 2025-07-17

Accordingly, as no federal question is presented on the face of the Complaint, the Court concludes that federal question jurisdiction is lacking.

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

Yi v. Zhengyu · filed 2025-07-22

Further, the complaint does not allege federal question subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

Patterson, Brian v. Evers, Tony · filed 2025-07-28

Because a federal question is plainly presented on the face of their complaint, plaintiffs do not show that federal-question jurisdiction is lacking or that removal was unauthorized.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award when no federal question appears on the face of the application.

Oleynikov v. Citibank, N.A. · filed 2025-07-31

In this matter, neither federal question jurisdiction nor diversity jurisdiction appears on the face of Plaintiffs application/motion. Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to vacate or modify the arbitration award.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction when federal statutory claims appear on the face of the complaint.

FOSTER v. HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY FRANCHISING, LLC AND SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC. · filed 2025-08-08

Plaintiff purports to set forth violations of federal statutes prohibiting racial discrimination in Counts IV and V of the Complaint, as well as a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act in Count VI. At this stage, the Court is satisfied as to its subject matter jurisdiction based upon federal question jurisdiction only.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a claim under federal law appears on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Amaro v. The GEO Group, Inc. · filed 2025-09-05

Removal of Plaintiff’s Complaint was proper because a federal question is clear on the face of the Complaint and Plaintiff does not deny seeking relief under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; references to the First Amendment in state-law defamation claims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Assily v. Smith · filed 2025-09-09

Mention of academic freedom or the First Amendment in a complaint otherwise focused on State-law defamation claims (and one claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress) do not transform these causes of action to federal questions “on the face” of the complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint can fairly be read to assert only state-law claims.

Zheng v. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers · filed 2025-09-16

The Court concludes that no federal law claim appears on the face of Plaintiff’s FAC.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

Wilmot v. Mahoney · filed 2025-09-23

For a court to exercise ... jurisdiction under section 1331, the federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when a properly pleaded complaint presents claims under the Constitution or federal law.

Devries v. Arizona Association of Realtors · filed 2025-09-23

The FAVC, on its face, clearly establishes claims under the Constitution and federal statutory law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; allegations supporting no federal cause of action do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Lawhorn · filed 2025-10-16

Moreover, Plaintiff has not met her burden of establishing federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires that “a federal question be presented on the face of the complaint.” Mich. S. R.R. Co. v. Branch & St. Joseph Cntys., 287 F.3d 568, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). The Court has carefully reviewed the complaint and finds that Plaintiff alleges no facts to support a federal cause of action against Defendants. Therefore, the complaint fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a personal injury complaint that presents no federal question on its face.

Melton · filed 2025-10-16

Nor does it appear that federal question jurisdiction exists, as Plaintiff does not invoke any federal causes of action in his complaint, and personal injury suits are typically addressed under applicable state tort laws.

Section 1331 jurisdiction cannot rest on federal claims raised in a response to an order to show cause when those claims are absent from the complaint.

Kenyatta · filed 2025-10-22

Neither claim is made in Plaintiff’s Complaint and, thus, neither claim can provide a basis for jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful-detainer complaint based on potential federal defenses or counterclaims.

Kroutik · filed 2025-10-30

Here, on the face of the Complaint, there is no federal question presented because the only cause of action is a state law unlawful detainer action. ... Further, Defendant cannot establish federal question jurisdiction by relying on potential defenses or counterclaims such as the Fair Housing Act, Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, or the First Amendment.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s only claim is state-law unlawful detainer.

Fancher · filed 2025-10-31

Although removal is proper when an action presents a federal question or where there is diversity of citizenship among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a), the Notice of Removal fails to establish federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint invokes only state law, even if the alleged facts might support a federal claim.

Thompson · filed 2025-11-03

Thompson has not invoked federal law, therefore on the face of her complaint, there is no federal question presented. As such, her age discrimination claim does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 generally requires a federal question to be pleaded in the complaint.

DUBOIS · filed 2025-11-03

But one way or another, Section 1331 generally requires that a federal question be plead in the complaint. See Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). But none is here.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; asserting federal-question jurisdiction alone does not establish one.

Furtado v. Furtado · filed 2025-12-08

And although Furtado says the Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, see ECF 1 at 3, there is no apparent federal question on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question connected to the relief requested; invoking the Fourteenth Amendment without that connection does not establish jurisdiction.

Doe · filed 2025-12-12

The first two are not bases for this Court to exercise jurisdiction, and to the extent Hardeman Bey refers to the Fourteenth Amendment, she has not presented a federal question that connects her requests with a due process issue.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the complaint; a generic reference to suppressed constitutional rights does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Sammour · filed 2025-12-23

Here, Sammour makes no reference to any federal laws—aside from a generic reference to “suppression of constitutional rights”—nor does he allege an amount in controversy or diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; allegations showing no claim under federal law, the Constitution, or a treaty do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

FINNEMAN · filed 2026-01-08

“Federal question jurisdiction exists only if a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint.” ... Despite having done so, the Court cannot discern any other violation of federal law, the Constitution, or treaty of the United States pled in the Complaint over which this Court may properly exercise federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; citing federal laws unrelated to the asserted claim does not establish jurisdiction.

Harrison · filed 2026-01-16

In this sense, Harrison has not presented a federal question “on the face of [his] complaint.” See Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp, 507 F.3d at 914.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint.

Harmatz · filed 2026-01-22

Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction on removal when the state-court complaint raises no issue of federal law.

Howorka · filed 2026-03-30

In sum, because the issues of federal law raised by Howorka do not appear anywhere in the state court complaint, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint.

Swint · filed 2026-04-22

In the present case, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; merely naming a federal statute does not establish jurisdiction.

Rana · filed 2026-04-30

But invoking the name of a federal statute is not enough to confer jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no violation of federal law or the Constitution.

Futrell · filed 2026-04-30

In the Complaint, Plaintiff invokes federal question jurisdiction. Doc. [1] at 5. But nothing in the “Statement of Claim” refers to a violation of a federal statute or constitutional provision.

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

Stanley · filed 2026-05-06

The second type of federal jurisdiction relies on the presence of a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any claims. Federal jurisdiction therefore cannot be based on the presence of a federal cause of action.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint asserts an independent federal cause of action.

Hauman · filed 2026-05-13

The Court finds that Mr. Hauman has presented a federal question on the fact of his complaint by asserting a claim for “Violation of Fair Housing Act & Colorado Anti Discrimination Act.” Docket No. 7 at 41.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint.

CAMPBELL · filed 2026-05-22

Here, no federal question exists on the face of the Complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint, and the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing federal-question jurisdiction.

Gant · filed 2026-06-05

In the present case, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires that “a federal question be presented on the face of the complaint.”

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

Coverdale · filed 2026-06-05

Nor is any federal question apparent from Coverdale’s factual allegations.

Section 1331 requires federal law to supply an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim; a defendant’s preemption defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Schmidt v. National Organization for Women · filed 1983-04-01

Federal question jurisdiction is properly invoked when a plaintiff pleads a claim that “arises under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim “arises under” federal law when federal law supplies an essential element of the claim. ... Thus, defendants’ assertion that the Labor-Management Relations Act preempts any state right to work laws is insufficient to support removal jurisdiction.

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

O'Quinn v. Manuel · filed 1985-08-05

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, an action arises under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982) “if in order for the plaintiff to secure the relief sought he will be obliged to establish both the correctness and the applicability to his case of a proposition of federal law.” ... In the present case, the face of plaintiffs complaint clearly states a federal question sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the district court.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint contains no essential claim based on federal law.

Baldwin County Eastern Shore Hospital Board, Inc. v. Windham · filed 1989-02-21

Upon examination of the face of the plaintiffs state court complaint, the Court can find no element named therein, much less an essential one, which states a claim based on a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... Consequently, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to state a cognizable federal claim on its face; a Section 1983 claim must identify the specific constitutional rights allegedly violated.

No. 89-1171 · filed 1989-03-08

In order for a court to have subject matter jurisdiction, the pleading must on its face state a cognizable claim for relief, and in a section 1983 action the plaintiff must be able to point to specific articulable constitutional rights that have been transgressed.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction when federal claims appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

Coker v. Culinary Hotel · filed 1993-09-17

Because federal questions appear on the face of plaintiffs' complaint, the district court did not err in granting removal and in retaining jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint, through either a federal cause of action or a state claim that necessarily turns on a substantial federal question.

Greene v. Direct TV, Inc. · filed 2018-01-09

To establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a question of federal law must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. ... Greene’s complaint does not identify any federal statute furnishing the relevant causes of action or a substantial question of federal law raised by his claims.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; one that might arise during discovery does not establish jurisdiction.

Moalem v. International Spa, Association · filed 2019-08-11

In order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, however, a federal question must appear on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state mortgage foreclosure claim merely because the loan is an FHA loan.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wilson · filed 2019-09-25

As Wells Fargo Bank’s Complaint is based solely on state foreclosure law, it raises no federal questions and removal pursuant to § 1331 is generally improper.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action when the complaint raises no federal question.

South Bay Property Management Inc v. Donahue · filed 2020-03-24

Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and the Complaint makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no federal question apparent from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; calling a life insurance benefits dispute a civil rights case does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Davis v. Kemper Life Insurance Company · filed 2020-06-15

It is obvious that this suit does not really and substantially involve a dispute over the validity, construction, or effects of the laws of the United States, nor does it raise any federal issue, as required to satisfy federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a federal claim; using a Federal Tort Claims Act form does not establish federal-question jurisdiction when the allegations raise only state-law issues.

Hart v. Dank Smoke Shop and Grocery · filed 2021-11-15

Although he incorrectly used a Federal Tort Claims Act claim form, nothing in his factual allegations states any federal claim for relief. To the contrary, his assertions that he was assaulted and injured by an employee or employees of a private New Mexico business raise only issues of New Mexico state law, not federal questions.

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

Finch v. Biller · filed 2022-04-27

Due to the foregoing, Mr. Finch has not pled a question of federal law over which this Court has original jurisdiction, and the matter is remanded to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the operative complaint at the time of removal; a defendant’s view that the plaintiff could have brought a federal claim does not establish jurisdiction.

Meeks v. City of Rochester · filed 2022-10-24

Here, the Court indisputably does not have diversity jurisdiction, and so the relevant inquiry is whether federal question jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... However, nothing on the face of the amended complaint suggests that this is a federal cause of action—there is no invocation of “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that it did not have original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims at the time of removal.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to present a federal cause of action or a state law claim implicating a substantial federal question; a vague assertion of federal law is insufficient.

Belt v. Amazon Home Warranty Company · filed 2023-06-28

Plaintiff’s vague and unfounded assertion that his claims implicate federal law is insufficient to establish that such claims arise under any federal statute, treaty, or the United States Constitution, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint in the removed action; a federal claim in a related lawsuit does not supply jurisdiction.

Threlkeld v. Norton Healthcare Louisville · filed 2023-07-14

Thus, because federal question jurisdiction is not found on face of the Complaint, this matter must be remanded.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a complaint relying only on state law does not satisfy that requirement.

Caldwell v. Institute of Academic Excellence, Inc. · filed 2023-09-07

Accordingly, a question of ... federal law does not appear on the face of Plaintiff's complaint, and removal was improper.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; state law claims do not establish federal question jurisdiction merely because a contract may be governed in part by federal law.

Marathon Petroleum Company LP v. PI Stadium Corner LLC · filed 2023-10-04

The face of the complaint merely states breach of contract, conversion, and unfair competition claims governed by California law. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to plead that this Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a challenge to a state-court custody decision does not satisfy that requirement.

Bell v. Echols · filed 2024-01-25

In this case, no federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; raising a federal statute in briefing does not establish jurisdiction.

Niekamp v. Story · filed 2024-02-23

However, plaintiff mentions neither the Securities Exchange Act nor FINRA’s rules in his complaint. Nor does plaintiff identify how the Act or the rules were violated. Plaintiff therefore does not establish federal question jurisdiction on the face of his complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim does not establish jurisdiction.

900 South Figueroa Street Apartments Investors LLC v. Payne · filed 2024-02-28

Any rights based in federal law that Defendant believes he has by way of a defense or a basis for a counterclaim does not give this Court original jurisdiction over Plaintiff's unlawful detainer case.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of the complaint, even if the federal claim ultimately fails to state a claim.

Pell v. Nunez · filed 2024-04-30

For purposes of § 1331, a district court has jurisdiction over an action “arising under” federal law “when a federal question appears on the face of the complaint.”

Section 1331 requires a federal question apparent on the face of the complaint; an unsupported assertion that conduct violates federal law does not establish jurisdiction.

Olson v. Severson · filed 2024-05-10

Under 28 U.S.C. §1331, federal courts have jurisdiction over complaints alleging violations of federal law. ... The limited facts in the complaint do not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s complaint to support federal-question jurisdiction.

Mattingly v. Justice · filed 2024-08-05

No federal question is raised in Ms. Mattingly’s complaint for unlawful detainer.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a complaint seeks statutory damages under a federal statute such as the FDCPA, even if the complaint does not formally list a cause of action.

Scott v. Middleman · filed 2025-05-02

Because the FDCPA is a federal statute, it is sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because an Indian is a party.

Barker-Hatch v. Viejas Group Baron Long Capitan Grande Band of Digueno Mission Indians of Viejas Group Reservation · filed 2000-02-08

Federal question jurisdiction does not exist merely because an Indian is a party.

A suit based on a federal statutory right arises under federal law for § 1331 even when the federal right covers the same ground as an existing state common-law right.

Ella Fitzgerald, John Lewis, Georgiana Henry and Norman Granz v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. · filed 1956-01-26

Although a right created by a federal statute covers thé same ground as a right already existing under the common law of the states and territories, a suit based on that federal statute is one “arising under” a law of the .United States, so that a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A dispute over whether the United States acquired exclusive legislative jurisdiction over military-reservation lands presents a federal question arising under § 1331.

United States v. Warne · filed 1960-11-29

Although a determination of these cases upon the merits depends in part upon the legal effect of certain proceedings taken pursuant to State consent-to-purchase statutes and State cession statutes, the question whether the United States acquired exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the lands comprising the various military reservations under discussion is a federal question arising under Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345.

The Federal Arbitration Act does not independently create § 1331 jurisdiction; a court asked to enforce arbitration must have another basis for subject-matter jurisdiction.

Robert Lawrence Company, Inc. v. Devonshire Fabrics, Inc. · filed 1959-10-28

It is interesting to note that though new substantive federal rights were created, suits involving the application of the Arbitration Act do not furnish an independent basis of federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A suit does not arise under federal law within § 1331 when the right, title, or interest the plaintiff seeks to protect arises from state law rather than federal law.

Strauss v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHER. OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. · filed 1959-12-30

That is, if the right, title or interest sought to be protected by the plaintiff does not arise out of Federal law (as opposed to State law, common or statutory), then the suit is not one "arising under the * * * laws * * * of the United States".

A suit does not arise under federal law within § 1331 when the right, title, or interest the plaintiff seeks to protect arises from state law rather than federal law.

Strauss v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers · filed 1959-12-30

That is, if the right, title or interest sought to be protected by the plaintiff does not arise out of Federal law (as opposed to State law, common or statutory), then the suit is not one “arising under the * * * laws * * * of the United States”.

Section 1331 cannot be used to bypass Congress’s specific and exclusive judicial-review procedure for customs disputes merely because the claim is framed as constitutional.

Eastern States Petroleum Corporation v. William P. Rogers, Attorney General of the United States · filed 1960-06-07

Section 1331 vests federal question jurisdiction in the district courts and, unlike § 1340, contains no exception relating to Customs Court jurisdiction. But we do not agree that Congress’ failure to provide an exception to § 1331 similar to that specified in § 1340 indicates an intent to open a loophole in its clear purpose to exclude customs cases from the district courts. When Congress provides a specific judicial remedy, relief may generally be accorded only through the specified procedure.

The Declaratory Judgment Act does not itself create federal jurisdiction, but § 1331 supplies jurisdiction for declaratory relief when the underlying nonliability claim rests on federal statutes.

Luckenbach Steamship Co., Inc. v. United States · filed 1963-01-11

It is true, as defendant argues, that the Declaratory Judgments Act did not extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts. ... But jurisdiction in this case rests not on that Act but on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1333, on the federal statutes on which appellant relies for its contention that certain provisions in its charter contract with the Government were unlawful and void, and on Section 2 of the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. § 742.

Section 1331 may support equitable remedies only when the plaintiff shows a legal right and standing; general equity power does not itself confer jurisdiction.

Sapp v. Hardy · filed 1962-03-30

The general equity power inherent in a district court does not itself confer jurisdiction, but can implement jurisdiction otherwise existing and allows the equitable molding of necessary remedies and procedures. The jurisdiction of the court as such exists only as granted by some law of the United States. I think no jurisdiction exists in the present case by virtue of the so-called “general equity power” itself, but this inherent power may be used here if the suit complies with the general grant under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over a “case arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” However, under this section there must be some person entitled to a remedy at the hands of the court and entitled to invoke the equity power of the court. This legal right or standing of a party must be shown before a “case” is presented and the equitable jurisdiction of this Court can come into play.

Once federal law is applicable under § 1331, the court must exercise its adjudicatory power.

Brillis v. Chandris (U.S.A.) Inc. · filed 1963-03-22

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, once federal law is found applicable the court’s power to adjudicate must be exercised.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over alleged National Labor Relations Act violations committed to the NLRB, except where Congress separately authorizes district-court actions.

Marydale Products Company, Inc. v. United Packinghouse Workers of America, Afl-Cio · filed 1963-09-04

This court lacks federal question jurisdiction of this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Alleged violation of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., is properly addressed solely to the National Labor Relations Board, San Diego [Bldg. Trades Council Millmen’s] Union v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 245 [79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775], except where jurisdiction is conferred on the District Court by §§ 301(a) and 303(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 185(a) and 187(b), which sections are not involved here.

A claim under LMRA § 301(a) arises under federal law for purposes of § 1331 because federal substantive law governs such suits.

Publishers' Ass'n of New York City v. New York Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union Number Two · filed 1965-09-29

Although it has been questioned whether such a claim “arises” under the laws of the United States, American Dredging Co. v. Local 25, Marine Div. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, 338 F.2d 837, 843-846 (3rd Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 935, 85 S.Ct. 941, 13 L.Ed.2d 822 (1965), there can be little doubt that it does. To hold otherwise would be to disregard the Supreme Court’s holding in Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 77 S.Ct. 912, 923, 1 L.Ed.2d 972 (1957), that the substantive law which must be applied in suits under Section 185(a) is federal law, which the courts must fashion from the policy of our national labor laws.

An action under LMRA § 303 arises under federal law for purposes of § 1331, so diversity of citizenship is not required.

Franchi Construction Co. v. Local No. 560 of the International Hod Carriers · filed 1965-11-30

However, in the light of a number of subsequent and persuasive opinions which declined to follow that holding, I now reverse myself and rule that an action under Section 303 arises under a law of the United States and this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 can reach federal common law only when federal principles control a disputed aspect of the claim; federal approval of a regulated carrier’s private contract does not by itself displace state contract law.

McFaddin Express, Inc. v. Adley Corp. · filed 1965-06-07

Accepting that application of “federal principles” would bring the suit within 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on the theory that “the ‘laws’ referred to in the statute are not confined to Acts of Congress, but include also such ‘federal common law’ as may exist,” ... we cannot find that plaintiffs have here shown that federal principles should supersede state law in any respect relevant to this case. That the contracts could not lawfully be carried out save with ICC approval does not, without more, demonstrate that Congress meant all aspects of their performance or non-performance to be governed by law to be fashioned by federal courts rather than by the state law applicable to similar contracts relating to businesses not under federal regulation.

Section 1331 does not reach state-law contract claims whose connection to a federal statutory program is merely collateral and does not implicate a dominant federal interest.

Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · filed 1966-09-20(a)

In sum, the claim against the brokers arises wholly under state law; and even if the insurance contract requires construction of the federal statutes which create the insurance functions of Exim Bank (see note 5, supra), a point which is not germane to the jurisdictional question presented here, the liability of the brokers is predicated on their subsequent undertaking to the plaintiff under circumstances in which there is no dominant federal interest justifying the assertion of jurisdiction by this Court.

A private contract claim does not arise under federal law for Section 1331 purposes merely because federal policy affects the contract when Congress withheld a private federal remedy.

McFaddin Express, Inc. v. Adley Corp. · filed 1966-06-21

It would thus be highly unlikely that Congress meant that acts by an acquiring motor carrier toward the carrier to be acquired, allegedly in excess of its contract rights, should give rise to a claim under the laws of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or “under any Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies,” 28 U.S.C. § 1337.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction for a state-law slander claim that alleges no deprivation of a federally protected right.

Williams v. Williams · filed 1966-07-21(a)

We are unable to see that he has been deprived of due process, equal protection of the laws, or any other federally protected right. If appellant has suffered damages for an actionable wrong in the nature of slander, his remedy, if any, must be pursued in the State courts of California.

A claim governed by state law does not arise under Section 1331 merely because the state law is incorporated into a federal statutory program.

Roecker v. United States · filed 1967-01-05

Original federal jurisdiction exists where there is diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, where the matter in controversy “arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or where jurisdiction is conferred by a special statute. … The question is, therefore, whether a claim which depends on state law incorporated into a federal statutory program “arises under” the laws of the United States. The Supreme Court has answered this question in the negative.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over private property inside a national park when the property rights remain governed by state rather than federal law.

MaComber v. Bose · filed 1967-04-27

A federal question does exist if, at the time of the creation of the park, the law of the state which had formerly governed the lands comprising the park ceased to exist as state law, but became operational as federal law by virtue of the transfer of the park lands to the sovereignty of the United States. ... For these reasons the court is of the opinion that the rights in privately owned property within the exterior boundaries of Glacier Park are governed by state and not federal law and that this court has no jurisdiction.

Section 1331(a) does not federalize a state-law tort merely because the dispute involves a federal agency or conduct alleged to violate the spirit of a federal statute.

Mullins v. First National Exchange Bank of Virginia · filed 1967-10-21(a)

The plaintiffs’ right to recover will turn not upon anything contained in the statute, but rather upon the tort law of the State of Virginia. … Nor does the classification of the Small Business Administration of a “sue and be sued” agency without more suffice to establish federal question jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would be tantamount to a finding that any time a sue and be sued agency is listed as a party defendant the case would automatically be one arising under the laws of the United States. … My conclusion that federal question jurisdiction does not lie applies equally to each of the three plaintiffs.

The word "laws" in § 1331 includes federal common law created by judicial decisions as well as federal statutes.

Ivy Broadcasting Company, Inc. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company and New York Telephone Company, Defendants-Ap · filed 1968-02-13

The word “laws” in § 1331 should be construed to include laws created by federal judicial decisions as well as by congressional legislation.

A state common-law damages action does not arise under federal law for Section 1331 purposes merely because a federal statute is incidentally involved.

Davidson v. General Finance Corporation · filed 1968-12-26

Under the terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a federal question is a matter in controversy which “arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Plaintiff’s cause of action here doe's not present such a case, for it is a common law action for damages only incidentally involving a federal statute.

Rights arising under state law assimilated as federal law within a federal enclave arise under federal law for jurisdictional purposes.

MacOmber v. James Bose and Ethyl Joyce Bose · filed 1968-10-04

By this cession and acceptance, federal authority became the only authority operating within the ceded area. Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 304 U.S. 518, 58 S.Ct. 1009, 82 L.Ed. 1502 (1938); Fort Leavenworth R. R. v. Lowe, supra. State law theretofore applicable within the area was assimilated as federal law, James Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U.S. 94, 60 S.Ct. 431, 84 L.Ed. 596 (1940), to remain in effect until changed by Congress. Rights arising under such assimilated law, arise under federal law and are properly the subject of federal jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires an affirmative congressional grant even when a claim satisfies Article III's arising-under and case-or-controversy requirements.

Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. v. John W. McCormack Speaker of the House of Representatives · filed 1968-07-30(a)

Even where the requisites of Article III, section 2 are met — that is, the claim presents a case or controversy which “arises under” the Constitution or laws of the United States — jurisdiction of federal courts is dependent on an affirmative grant by Congress.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction does not arise merely because a defendant was federally chartered when Section 1349 expressly withholds jurisdiction and the United States owns no majority interest.

Rice v. Disabled American Veterans · filed 1968-11-18

Generally, federal jurisdiction is invoked on one of two grounds. There is either a federal question involved, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1964), or there is diversity of citizenship between the parties, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1964). … This Court has no federal question jurisdiction in this case. Congress has explicitly declared by statute that the federal district courts “shall not have jurisdiction of any civil action by or against any corporation upon the ground that it was incorporated by or under an Act of Congress, unless the United States is the owner of more than one-half of its capital stock.” 28 U.S.C. § 1349 (1964). … Since the United States does not own more than one-half the capital stock of the Disabled American Veterans, the fact that the organization was federally-chartered by an Act of Congress does not create federal question jurisdiction in the federal district courts.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law but does not itself create substantive rights.

Lyle v. Village of Golden Valley · filed 1970-03-06

Sections 1331 and 1343 of Title 28 U.S.C., cited in the plaintiff’s complaint confer jurisdiction on the United States District Courts to hear certain causes of action, i.e., questions arising under the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States and questions concerning deprivation or protection of civil rights. These sections do not in themselves create any rights but merely give the district court power to hear the causes and act when rights are asserted under other provisions.

A state-law claim does not arise under the Constitution for section 1331 purposes merely because a court may need to apply the Full Faith and Credit Clause during the litigation.

Luterman v. Levin · filed 1970-09-04(a)

The full faith and credit clause does not provide an independent basis of jurisdiction.

A case arises under federal law for section 1331 purposes only when a right created by federal law is an essential element of the plaintiff's claim; a federal defense does not suffice.

The People of the State of California, and v. General Motors Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Does I Through C, And · filed 1970-09-22(a)

The courts have uniformly held that a case arises under the laws of the United States only if a right created by federal laws is an essential element of plaintiff’s case. ... We express nothing as to the merits, but we do note that even if the federal law provides a defense, the claim does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal right or immunity to be an essential element of the plaintiff's claim whose success depends on the construction of federal law; merely needing to construe or apply federal law during litigation is insufficient.

Aleut League v. Atomic Energy Commission · filed 1971-10-08

A federal question is presented only where the correct decision in a case depends upon the construction or interpretation of the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States, or on the validity of a statute or treaty. ... Otherwise stated, to bring a ease within a statute, a right or immunity created by the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action. ... The fact that it may be necessary in the course of litigation to construe or apply provisions of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States is not sufficient to give application to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) includes suits brought by a state and treats federal common law as laws of the United States, including federal-common-law claims concerning interstate water pollution.

Illinois v. City of Milwaukee · filed 1972-04-24(a)

The question is whether pollution of interstate or navigable waters creates actions arising under the “laws” of the United States within the meaning of § 1331(a). We hold that it does; and we also hold that § 1331 (á) includes suits brought by a State. ... We see no reason not to give “laws” its natural meaning ... and therefore conclude that § 1331 jurisdiction will support claims founded upon federal common law as well as those of a statutory origin.

A claim arises under federal law for § 1331(a) when its outcome depends on a real and substantial dispute over the validity, construction, or effect of federal law.

PAAC v. Rizzo · filed 1973-08-16(a)

A suit to enforce a right which takes its origin in the laws of the United States is not necessarily, or for that reason alone, one arising under those laws, for a suit does not so arise unless it really and substantially involves a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction or effect of such a law, upon the determination of which the result depends. ... A case arises under a federal law if rights claimed by one party may be defeated by one construction of the statute and sustained by the opposite construction. ... The very issue in this case is whether under 42 U.S.C. § 2791 and the OEO guidelines promulgated pursuant thereto, the Mayor of the City of Philadelphia has the power to fire the Executive Director of PAAC and the power to refuse to renew the contract of the General Counsel. ... since there is no question that the matter in controversy exceeds the value of $10,000, we find that there is federal jurisdiction in the instant controversy.

Section 1331(a) jurisdiction exists when the claim would be sustained under a construction of a federal statute, including a claim requiring construction of federal park statutes to determine federal officials' legal duties.

Sierra Club v. Department of Interior · filed 1974-05-13(a)

The test for establishing jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) is whether the claim would be sustained under a construction of a federal statute. ... Plaintiff’s second claim involves a construction of federal statutes, the Redwood National Park Act (16 U.S.C. § 79a et seq.) and the National Park System Act (16 U.S.C. § 1) and a determination of the extent of the legal responsibilities imposed by these statutes upon defendants.

An action arises under federal law for Section 1331(a) purposes only if federal law expressly grants the remedy, the case requires construction of a federal statute, or a distinctive federal statutory policy requires federal legal principles.

Philip B. Lindy T/a Fountain View Apts., a Pennsylvania Limited Partnership v. James Lynn, Secretary of Housing and Urba · filed 1974-10-07(a)

An action arises under the laws of the United States if and only if the complaint seeks a remedy expressly granted by a federal law or if it requires the construction of a federal statute or a distinctive policy of a federal statute requires the application of federal legal principles for its disposition. T. B. Harms Company v. Eliscu, 2 Cir. 1964, 339 F.2d 823, 828; McFaddin Express, Incorporated v. Adley Corporation, 2 Cir. 1965, 346 F.2d 424, 426. If, on the other hand, the action is not expressly authorized by federal law, does not require the construction of a federal statute and is not required by some distinctive policy of a federal statute to be determined by the application of federal legal principles, it does not arise under the laws of the United States even if federal law furnishes some necessary ingredient of the claim.

Section 1331 is jurisdictional rather than substantive, so a plaintiff invoking it must identify an applicable source of substantive federal law.

Hohensee v. Dailey · filed 1974-10-16

Sections 1331 and 1343 of the United States Code do not comprise substantive law but are merely directional signs pointing to the appropriate statutes. The Plaintiff does not cite the applicable statute.

A federally appointed receiver's status and the federal government's interest do not make a state-law asset-recovery claim arise under federal law for Section 1331 purposes.

United States of America and Mortimer Todel, as Receiver of the Funds, Assets and Property of Roosevelt Capital Corporat · filed 1975-02-24

Even if the Eastern District court did not have general ancillary jurisdiction over the claim of this federally appointed Receiver, the United States argues that this case “is so imbued with the interest of the Government” that it arises under the laws of the United States and therefore jurisdiction is available under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We do not agree. ... Nor does Todel’s claim against Franklin for an “improper and unlawful” payment from Roosevelt’s account raise any issues of federal law.

An executive order issued solely under executive authority, rather than to implement a federal statute, is not a law of the United States for § 1331 purposes.

Local 1498, American Federation of Government Employees, a Labor Organization v. American Federation of Government Emplo · filed 1975-09-03

Hence, while Executive Order No. 11491 regulates and implements federal government personnel policies, it does so solely as a product of executive authority and not as a consequence of congressional law making. Accordingly, this Executive Order implementing presidential personnel policies cannot attain the status as a “law of the United States” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction over an action requiring interpretation of a federal statute.

State of Mo., Etc. v. First Nat. Bank, Etc. · filed 1975-11-17(a)

This Court has jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a), 1337, and 1441, because the case involves the interpretation of federal statutes, 12 U.S.C. § 36(f).

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction exists when deciding the claim requires construing a federal statute to determine whether locally established water rates violate that statute.

City of Palo Alto v. City and County of San Francisco · filed 1977-03-31

The district court properly found that it had federal question jurisdiction (see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1966)) to adjudicate the Bay Cities’ claims. While appellees correctly state that rate-making is usually a subject within state competence, the setting of water rates is not at issue in the present case. The issue that the Bay Cities raise is whether the proposed water rates, as established by local law, violate the Raker Act if they discriminate against the Bay Cities on any other basis than cost. So cast, the question is a federal one.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction only when the plaintiff’s claim arises under the Constitution or federal law.

Kempf v. R. & E. Transit Co. · filed 1978-05-02

Jurisdiction does not exist pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 unless plaintiff’s claim arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1331 jurisdiction does not exist when the plaintiffs fail to establish a federal question arising under the Constitution or the narrow body of federal common law.

Walker v. United States · filed 1978-07-07

Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden to demonstrate a federal question arising under the United States Constitution, concerning alleged unconstitutional conduct by the federal officers who are defendants; or arising under the narrow federal common law, for conduct that was without the justificatory authority of probable cause, valid arrest warrants, a neutral judicial officer or quasi judicial body, and legitimate investigatory activity.

Section 1331’s arising-under inquiry is determined from the substance of the plaintiff’s complaint, and federal jurisdiction exists when federal law is pivotal to resolving the claim even if the complaint does not expressly cite federal law.

North American Phillips Corporation v. Emery Air Freight Corporation · filed 1978-07-17

Whether a suit arises under a law of the United States must be determined from plaintiff’s complaint, not defendant’s answer. ... However, the lack of any reference to federal law in the complaint is not controlling. ... From the substance of these allegations, it is clear that the complaint sets forth a claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331(a) requires federal law, in some form, to be the basis of the dispute.

City of Sault Ste. Marie, Mich. v. Andrus · filed 1978-08-31(a)

Although the exact extent of this “arising under” clause has never been precisely determined, it is clear that section 1331(a) contemplates that the court must find that the law of the United States, in one form or another, is the basis of the dispute.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over contract claims merely because a federal agency regulates or is collaterally involved in the transaction; the complaint must raise a federal question.

Penn State Construction Co. v. Associated-East Mortgage Co. · filed 1978-10-03

Accordingly, we hold that, since no federal question is raised by plaintiff’s allegations, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed.

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

Boyle v. Readers' Subscription Inc. · filed 1979-02-22

The complaint does not raise a federal question, however, and the only possible basis for jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the complaint states no federal question because the alleged private conduct is not actionable under the Constitution or federal civil-rights law.

Moye v. Chrysler Corp. · filed 1979-02-23

As such, no federal question has been stated and this Court is without jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when depositors’ claims under securities and constitutional law fail to present a federal question.

Hamblett v. BD. OF SAV. AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS, ETC. · filed 1979-02-28(a)

The court finds that the action sub judice does not present a federal question which acts to invest the court with jurisdiction to try the case.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when depositors’ claims under securities and constitutional law fail to present a federal question.

Hamblett v. Board of Savings & Loan Associations · filed 1979-02-28(a)

The court finds that the action sub judice does not present a federal question which acts to invest the court with jurisdiction to try the case.

Section 1331 provides no basis for relief against defendants when the plaintiff has no cause of action under the Constitution or federal civil-rights statutes.

Johnson v. Frederick · filed 1979-03-20

The federal question and civil rights jurisdictional statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 respectively, provide plaintiff no basis for relief from the moving defendants since he has no cause of action under the Constitution, the Indian Civil Rights Act or 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1331 is unavailable for state-law claims only peripherally related to federal securities statutes.

Federman v. Empire Fire And Marine Insurance Company · filed 1979-04-02

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is unavailable because Goldberg's claims raise issues of state law and are only peripherally related to the federal securities statutes.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a federal-common-law theory requires a real and substantial federal issue essential to the plaintiff’s cause of action, not a merely collateral or possible federal question.

Ames-Ennis, Inc. v. Midlothian Ltd. Partnership · filed 1979-04-23

Federal common law is simply not indispensable to the resolution of the “necessary” contract issue in this case.