28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 requires the asserted federal statute to supply both the source of authority for the right and its federal character; merely involving federal law is insufficient.

First National Bank v. Aberdeen National Bank · filed 1979-06-15(a)

Merely because an Act of Congress regulating commerce may be involved in the case is not enough to raise federal court jurisdiction. ... The plaintiff’s claim must arise under that Act in the sense that the Act supplies not only the source of the authority to establish that right, but also that it establishes the federal nature of the right.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a controversy presenting federal constitutional and statutory questions.

Colon v. Carter · filed 1980-10-10

This Court has jurisdiction over this controversy by reason of the federal questions presented and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331.

Section 1331(a) does not cover claims alleging only violations of tribal law adopted under federal authority when the dispute does not substantially concern the validity, construction, or effect of federal law.

Boe v. Fort Belknap Indian Community of Fort Belknap Reservation · filed 1981-03-16(a)

It is true that 25 U.S.C. §§ 476,477 provide the authority and procedures whereby Indian tribes may adopt constitutions and bylaws and ratify corporate charters, but that fact alone is insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction. ... Since plaintiffs’ claims do not involve a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction, or effect of the IRA, they do not, in our opinion, arise under federal law.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction when the parties ask a court to interpret a federal statute.

Superior Oil Co. v. Pioneer Corp. · filed 1982-02-16

As the Parties are asking for an interpretation of this Federal Statute, there is jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits a federal employee to enforce a union's implied duty of fair representation under the Civil Service Reform Act in district court.

Karahalios v. Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center Presidio · filed 1982-03-09

Similarly, in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, there is an implied duty of fair representation owed by a union to all members of the bargaining unit, despite the fact that there is no explicit provision establishing such a duty. Moreover, just as the implicit duty of fair representation gives rise to a cause of action under the NLRA and the RLA despite the otherwise narrowly limited role of the courts under those statutes, the implied duty of fair representation in the Civil Service Reform Act should be enforceable in the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not independently permit suit against an individual union member when the substantive federal labor statutes do not authorize that suit and no other federal theory is pleaded.

Silver Motor Freight Terminal, Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 957 · filed 1982-03-26

Plaintiffs’ complaint also states that jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which states that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” It is doubtful that the citation of § 1331 adds anything to Plaintiffs’ complaint, since 29 U.S.C. §§ 185 & 187 are also, in effect, jurisdictional grants. Plaintiffs have not set forth any statute, or any legal theory, and this Court cannot discern any, which would enable Quillen to be sued under § 1331, absent jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. §§ 185 & 187.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a Lanham Act claim when the challenged intrastate activity affects interstate commerce.

Arrow United Industries, Inc. v. Hugh Richards, Inc., and A. J. Pegno Construction Corp. · filed 1982-05-06

The district court’s finding as to effect on interstate commerce is not clearly erroneous and the court thus has jurisdiction of this action under the Lanham Act and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A cause of action may arise under the Warsaw Convention for purposes of § 1331 federal-question jurisdiction beyond mass-disaster wrongful-death or baggage-loss cases.

Greenwald v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. · filed 1982-09-20

American argues that the ... rule should be limited to its facts: actions for wrongful death or baggage loss, in which diversity jurisdiction is unavailable, resulting from large air disasters. The argument is unpersuasive.

Section 1331's category of cases arising under the Constitution is broader than the category of claims involving rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution under Section 1343(3).

CONSOL. FREIGHTWAYS CORP. OF DELAWARE v. Kassel · filed 1983-02-14

The Court takes as its starting point the proposition that not every case which “arises under” the Constitution (the language used in § 1331) involves a “right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution” within the meaning of § 1343(3). ... a Supremacy Clause claim, which can normally be brought under § 1331, ... does not involve any rights “secured by the Constitution” within the meaning of § 1343(3).

Article III’s arising-under jurisdiction is broader than statutory federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Verlinden B. v. v. Central Bank of Nigeria · filed 1983-05-23

As these decisions make clear, Art. III “arising under” jurisdiction is broader than federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331, and the Court of Appeals’ heavy reliance on decisions construing that statute was misplaced.

A bond claim that does not depend on interpreting federal law presents no federal question under Section 1331.

Citizens Committee to Save the Land Grant Railroads v. Burlington Northern, Inc. · filed 1983-06-22

However, since plaintiffs do not argue that the question whether Burlington has breached the terms of the bond indentures somehow depends on the interpretation of the provisions of the Act or any other federal law, plaintiffs bond-related claim is not a federal question under the ... test.

Section 1331 requires more than a dispute that is merely connected in some way with a federal matter.

Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, a Division of Litton Systems, Inc. · filed 1984-01-30

Federal question jurisdiction, however, is not satisfied merely because “the dispute is in some way connected with a federal matter.”

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction when resolving a genuine controversy requires construction of federal law rather than merely interpretation of a local agreement.

City of Independence, Missouri v. Bond · filed 1985-02-26

The dispute in this case was triggered by the consortium agreement between the City and Jackson County, but it presents more than a question of the interpretation of that agreement. Instead, it demands interpretation of the provisions of the JTPA. Cases that involve a genuine controversy regarding the construction of a federal law raise a federal question sufficient to confer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal source of substantive rights to be adjudicated.

Dow Chemical Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · filed 1986-04-14

Therefore, in order for jurisdiction to be conferred upon this court by § 1331, a federal law must create substantive rights to be adjudicated.

Section 1331 does not treat laws applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia as federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Dimond v. District of Columbia · filed 1986-05-30

For purposes of federal question jurisdiction, Congress has expressly excluded all “laws applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia” from the body of “federal” law.

Every case arising under the patent laws within Section 1338 also arises under Section 1331 because patent laws are laws of the United States.

Charles R. Christianson, and International Trade Services, Inc., a Massachusetts Corporation v. Colt Industries Operatin · filed 1986-08-19

Obviously, every case that "arises under” 28 U.S.C. § 1338 also "arises under” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the patent laws are a subset of the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 arising-under jurisdiction exists when a well-pleaded complaint contains either a federal cause of action or a state cause of action that necessarily embodies a substantial federal question.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · filed 1987-03-18

To determine whether the court has federal question jurisdiction to decide the case, the complaint must contain either a federal cause of action or a state cause of action embodying a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 independently sustains a federal navigability claim after the United States disclaims a property interest and thereby ends the Quiet Title Act's separate jurisdictional basis.

State of Alaska v. United States · filed 1987-04-22

This court has jurisdiction over this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here the Court has federal question jurisdiction arising under 43 U.S.C. § 1631 and that jurisdiction is independent of the authority conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1346(f). As a consequence, the disclaimer filed by the United States pursuant to § 2409a(d) does not, by the terms of § 2409a(d), divest this Court of jurisdiction over the United States.

A claim arises under a federal statute for Section 1331 purposes only if the statute expressly grants the requested remedy, the issue requires construing the statute, or a distinct federal policy requires federal legal principles to control.

CIA. Petrolera Caribe, Inc. v. De Jesus · filed 1987-09-30

For plaintiff’s claim to arise under the PMPA, it must meet one of three requirements: (1) the remedy plaintiff seeks must be expressly granted by the statute; (2) the issue plaintiff presents must require construction of the statute; or (3) the statute must embody a distinct policy that requires federal legal principles to control disposition.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction to district courts but does not make their jurisdiction exclusive or prevent a court of appeals from considering constitutional issues in a petition for review.

Plaquemines Port, Harbor & Terminal District v. Federal Maritime Commission · filed 1988-02-02

Finally, the FMC argues that cases arising under the Constitution must be brought in the district courts under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (1982). The FMC confuses the grant of federal question jurisdiction to district courts with an exclusive grant of jurisdiction. There is nothing in section 1331 which excludes the appellate courts from considering constitutional issues in a petition for review.

A state Medicaid agency’s suit as assignee of ERISA benefits arises under federal law for Section 1331 because state assignment law transfers the right but ERISA supplies the exclusive mechanism for enforcing it.

Wisconsin Department of Health & Social Services v. Upholsterers International Union Health & Welfare Fund · filed 1988-06-06

Plaintiff confuses the mechanism by which it acquired the right to benefits under defendant’s plan with the mechanism for enforcing that right. ... the relevant assignment statutes do not themselves provide a cause of action. They merely confer upon plaintiff the cause of action that would have been available to the members of defendant’s plan under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) ... I find that federal question, not diversity, jurisdiction is present because plaintiffs sole cause of action arises under a federal statute, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).

A state-law conversion claim arises under Section 1331 when resolving it requires applying federal law, but a federal agency's lien alone creates no federal question when the claim requires no interpretation or application of federal law.

Cullipher v. Lindsey Rice Mill, Inc. · filed 1989-02-15

Nor does the court see anything in the plaintiff farmers’ complaint that requires, for the resolution of their conversion claim, a determination as to the meaning or application of any law relating to the Commodity Credit Corporation. The court therefore holds that no federal question jurisdiction exists deriving from the existence of liens on the plaintiff farmers’ rice crops held by the Commodity Credit Corporation. ... It will be necessary to apply the terms of 7 U.S.C. § 1631(e) to make that determination as to federal law. The court therefore holds that federal question jurisdiction has been established by the claim of a federally created security interest in the rice crops at issue.

Section 1331's broader grant encompasses Section 1337 cases, and the two statutes have identical arising-under requirements.

Altheus Richardson, Gilberto Miranda v. United Steelworkers of America · filed 1989-03-08

Jurisdiction could presumably be grounded on section 1331 as well since section 1331’s broader grant of jurisdiction over cases arising under federal laws would seem to encompass section 1337’s narrower grant of jurisdiction over cases arising under federal laws regulating commerce. There is no distinction, however, between the "arising under” requirements for section 1337 and section 1331.

Section 1331 and Section 1337(a) use analogous arising-under standards, requiring a federal right created by statute to be essential to the cause of action.

Milan Express Company, Inc. v. Western Surety Company · filed 1989-09-22

“Arising under” for purposes of Section 1337(a) is interpreted similarly to the analogous “arising under” language in Section 1331, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. ... An action will arise under a statute regulating commerce, therefore, if a federal right created by the statute is essential to the cause of action.

Section 1331 and Section 1337(a) use analogous arising-under standards, requiring a federal right created by statute to be essential to the cause of action.

Milan Express Co. v. Western Surety Co. · filed 1989-09-22

“Arising under” for purposes of Section 1337(a) is interpreted similarly to the analogous “arising under” language in Section 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... An action will arise under a statute regulating commerce, therefore, if ... a federal right created by the statute is essential to the cause of action.

Section 1331 does not cover a state or local dispute merely because state law adopts federal law as a criterion or local officials consult federal statutes and regulations.

Singleton Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. City of Pueblo · filed 1989-12-20

However, merely looking to federal law does not create a federal question. ... The mere adoption by a state law of a United States law as a criterion or test, when the law of the United States has no force ... proprio vigore, ... does not cause a case under the State law to be also a case under the law of the United States, and so it has been decided by this Court again and again. ... This suit is based on action by a subdivision of the state of Colorado taken under Colorado law. There is no final federal agency action to review and no federal question before me. ... Thus, I find no basis on the face of Singletons’ complaint to conclude that this Court has jurisdiction to hear its claims.

Section 1331 requires a federal right or immunity to be an essential element apparent on the complaint’s face; a generic citation to Section 1331 and the APA does not federalize review of a state agency merely applying federally authorized standards.

Acme Fill Corp. v. Reilly · filed 1990-03-28

Where a party asserts federal question jurisdiction plaintiff’s complaint must assert a claim that “arises under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337; ... To “arise under” federal law, an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim must be a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... Federal question jurisdiction cannot be supported as to CDHS by this generic reference to the jurisdictional statute and to the Administrative Procedure Act.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law dispute merely because federal law is a small ingredient of the dispute.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyerland Co. · filed 1990-09-07

It is clear that no federal jurisdiction exists over the present dispute under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1441 because the issues are governed by state law and federal law is a small ingredient of the dispute.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction when the underlying claims present no federal question.

Chuidian v. Philippine National Bank · filed 1990-08-29

Likewise, Chuidian’s underlying claims do not present a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law dispute merely because federal law is a small ingredient of the dispute.

In The Matter Of Meyerland Co. · filed 1990-10-05

It is clear that no federal jurisdiction exists over the present dispute under either 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 or Sec. 1441 because the issues are governed by state law and federal law is a small ingredient of the dispute.

Section 1331 grants general federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself create a cause of action.

Gambrell v. Hess · filed 1991-02-14

... U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1391 are of course the sections governing general federal question jurisdiction and venue and not in themselves sources of a cause of action.

A state’s public-trust rights in its navigable waters do not arise under Section 1331 when state law governs those rights and federal law does not continue to control them.

State of NY v. DeLyser · filed 1991-03-11

Of course, New York State may have an obligation under its own law to hold the lands in trust for its public, but that does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction. ... the State’s rights and duties with respect to these lands are governed purely by state law, and the claims based on the public trust doctrine therefore do not “arise under” federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 requires a cause of action involving a right created by federal law; a state common law nuisance claim does not qualify merely because state courts lack jurisdiction.

Still v. Michaels · filed 1992-03-11

For a controversy to arise under the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” Plaintiffs’ cause of action must involve a right created by federal law. ... A private nuisance action, however, is a state common law claim. ... Lack of jurisdiction in state court does not guarantee that the federal courts retain it.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state warranty claims that present no substantial federal question.

Besse v. General Motors Corp. · filed 2004-05-05

In conclusion, because this controversy does not present a federal question within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and because the amount in controversy requirement is not satisfied, the case must be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law tort claim merely because federal standards of care may apply.

Mariko L.A. Bennett v. Southwest Airlines Co., the Boeing Company, and City of Chicago · filed 2007-04-26

That some standards of care used in tort litigation come from federal law does not make the tort claim one “arising under” federal law.

Section 1331 requires federal law to be at issue in the claim; federal law merely shaping the interpretation of state law does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

International Union of Operating Engineers v. County of Plumas · filed 2009-03-20

“Arising under” federal jurisdiction only arises, then, when the federal law does more than just shape a court’s interpretation of state law; the federal law must be at issue.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a colorable constitutional claim even when the complaint fails to state a claim under a federal statute.

López v. UnióN De Trabajadores De La Industria Eléctrica Y Riego · filed 2019-07-17

A complaint may not state a claim for relief under a federal statute, such as the Landrum-Griffin Act or Section 1983, but nonetheless fall within Section 1331 jurisdiction because the complaint colorably alleges a constitutional violation.

Section 1331 does not provide arising-under jurisdiction when a state-law complaint raises no federal issue apart from an anticipated defense.

Torres v. St. Vincent dePaul Residence · filed 2023-04-03

But the relevant inquiry is whether Plaintiff has raised a federal issue in her complaint “unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of defenses,” Solomon, 62 F.4th at 64, and plainly she has not.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction when a complaint pleads a federal cause of action or relief depends on resolving a substantial federal question.

Tucker · filed 2026-05-27

Cases “arise under” federal law either when plaintiff pleads a cause of action created by federal law, or when plaintiff's relief depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a constitutional claim that is not completely baseless or plainly foreclosed, even if the claim may fail on the merits.

Owen v. City of Independence · filed 1977-09-26

Appellees phrase the issue in terms of subject matter jurisdiction. Properly viewed, however, the issue is whether Owen has stated a claim. Clearly, Owen's claim "arises under" the Constitution or laws of the United States, and is not completely baseless or plainly foreclosed by prior decisions. Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 affords a federal district court subject matter jurisdiction over cases such as this one.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff relying on treaty-based federal-question jurisdiction to plausibly allege that the action arises under a treaty of the United States.

El v. Crail · filed 2020-09-15

The district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to allege plausibly that his action arose under a treaty of the United States, or diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 applies only to a suit arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Rader v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co. of Philadelphia · filed 1957-03-05

Section 1331, 28 U.S.C., is m-applicable. For jurisdiction to rest on that section the suit must be one arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over an action to declare and enforce Indian fishing rights reserved by a treaty with the United States.

Maison v. Confederated Tribes Of The Umatilla Indian Reservation · filed 1963-02-15

This case involves fishing rights of the Confederated Tribes of the Walla Walla, Cayuse and Umatilla Indians under a treaty with the United States. The District Court had jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, relating to federal questions, and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, the Federal Declaratory Judgments Act.

A friendly foreign nation's treaty relationships with the United States do not by themselves make its claim one arising under federal treaties for purposes of § 1331.

Republic of Iraq v. The First National Bank of Chicago · filed 1965-08-12

The mere fact that plaintiff is a friendly sovereign nation with treaty relationships with the United States does not make the claim one arising under the treaties of the United States for the purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 and § 1362 use the same requirement that the matter in controversy arise under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Quinault Tribe of Indians v. Gallagher · filed 1966-09-19

Section 1362 provides a basis for jurisdiction only where the matter in controversy arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. In this respect the new statute is identical with the general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A treaty granting foreign citizens equal access to U.S. courts does not create § 1331 jurisdiction over a claim when the treaty creates no substantive right underlying that claim.

Buechold v. Ortiz · filed 1968-10-01

These actions did not arise under treaties of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as the treaty gives access to the courts and does not create a right to child support.

Section 1331(a) cannot supply treaty-based jurisdiction when the treaty itself does not permit the suit.

Smith v. Canadian Pacific Airways, Ltd. · filed 1971-12-06(a)

If treaty jurisdiction under the Convention does not lie, federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), which permits cases ... arising under ... United States treaties, clearly cannot be established.

Treaty authorization to sue in the United States does not itself supply domestic jurisdiction; a plaintiff must independently satisfy a domestic jurisdictional statute such as Section 1331.

Fabiano Shoe Co., Inc. v. Alitalia Airlines · filed 1974-08-23(a)

The particular domestic forums which can decide this case are determinable by reference to domestic statutes, not to the Convention. No statutory basis exists for this Court to exercise jurisdiction in the domestic law sense. Diversity jurisdiction is lacking since the defendant is of unspecified citizenship and since the amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1970). The prerequisites for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (1970) also are not present.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a claim arising under a treaty even when the treaty’s self-execution is disputed; self-execution concerns the cause of action rather than jurisdiction.

Sluss v. U.S. Dep't of Justice · filed 2018-07-31

For the following reasons, we hold: First, the government’s self-execution argument is non-jurisdictional and therefore does not affect the court’s subject matter jurisdiction to consider Sluss’s case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff expressly pleads a claim under the Montreal Convention.

Garcia v. Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. · filed 2018-12-13

Not so. As another court in this District recently observed, federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 exists when plaintiffs explicitly pursue claims under the Montreal Convention.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a speculative treaty claim when the treaty creates no private right of action.

State of Nevada v. Dent · filed 2022-04-12

Ms. Dent also does not sufficiently allege federal question jurisdiction. ... The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo does not create a private right of action under which Ms. Dent may sue based on a traffic violation and the ensuring penalty.

Section 1331 covers a treaty claim when the treaty creates the asserted right and its construction will determine the claim's disposition.

Temengil v. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands · filed 1983-07-01

A claim "arises under" a treaty for purposes of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 if the claim asserts a right created by treaty and the construction of a treaty will determine the claim's disposition.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on FDA guidance that is not law and creates no right to sue.

MCCOY v. BIOMAT USA, INC. · filed 2024-07-31

And as for the actual FDA Guidance,3 it is not a law contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and does not create rights upon which an individual can sue —statements that the FDA Guidance itself makes clear.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a claim cites federal agency guidelines.

Williams v. State of Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development · filed 2024-03-19

Affording the Complaint a generous reading, Williams invokes this Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and cites to MDOH’s breach of the United States Treasury Guidelines or “HUD guidelines,” as part of her claim. See ECF No. 1 at 3, 6; ECF No. 1-1. But those guidelines alone do not implicate a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a municipal contract dispute merely because the contract incorporates federal EPA procurement regulations.

Perini Corp. v. City of New York · filed 1998-08-11

Jurisdiction over this matter is predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as stated in the Complaint, not on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as Perini incorrectly argues. ... The incorporation of the EPA procurement regulations at issue here into a municipal construction contract does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Validly issued federal administrative regulations may serve as the federal law supporting jurisdiction under Section 1331(a).

Gonzalez v. Chasen · filed 1980-11-17(a)

Therefore, we conclude that said regulations may be used as a basis for an action in this Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction when resolving the parties’ dispute requires interpreting a federal statute and a federal regulation.

Suro v. Llenza · filed 1982-02-10(a)

Therefore, in order to determine which of the contentions presented to this Court is legally sound, this Court will have to interpret the meaning and ... scope of 10 U.S.C. § 3848 and paragraph 6(d) of National Guard Regulation 20-4 (635-100), of November 30, 1969. Thus, there is subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

A party invoking Section 1331 based on a private accreditor’s rules must show that the rules were formulated under specific federal statutory authority and promulgated under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Miller v. Indiana Hospital · filed 1983-04-27

For example, if predicating jurisdiction upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the JCAH’s rules and regulations were formulated pursuant to a specific grant of federal statutory authority and promulgated in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-53 (1976).

A state-created consumer claim does not arise under federal law for Section 1331 merely because state law incorporates federal manufacturing standards as a measure of liability.

Gatlin v. Countryside Industries, Inc. · filed 1983-06-07

The issue before this Court is whether one of the causes of action alleged in Gatlin’s original complaint “arises under” the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. U.S. Const, art. III; 28 U. S.C. §§ 1331, 1337. ... The remedy which Gatlin relies upon is state created. ... Declining original jurisdiction over consumer-oriented claims under the Texas Act will not raise an obstacle to the intended purposes of the National Act and it will prevent the creation of yet another vehicle for hearing traditional state claims in federal courts.

A breach of a federally mandated contract term does not arise under § 1331 unless Congress intended the contractual rights and duties to be federal in nature.

Nieto-Santos v. Fletcher Farms · filed 1984-07-03

Thus, absent evidence of congressional intent to make contractual rights and duties “federal in nature,” even causes of action based on an alleged breach of a federally-mandated contract provision present “only state-law claims.” ... We hold that the district court properly concluded that this case does not “arise under” federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.

Validly issued federal regulations count as laws of the United States for section 1331 jurisdiction over a suit challenging an agency's application of federal grant rules.

Fairview Township v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · filed 1985-09-23

The federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, provides the district courts with jurisdiction over all civil actions coming under the laws of the United States. ... Validly issued administrative regulations may be treated as laws of the United States for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Whether an agency policy is a law of the United States for Section 1331 turns on its statutory authority and formality; an informal directive issued without specific congressional authority or APA procedures is not.

Federal Land Bank v. Federal Intermediate Credit Bank · filed 1989-10-31

That case contains a two-part test for determining whether a policy pronouncement of a government agency may properly serve as the basis for jurisdiction under section 1331. The test involves weighing (1) the statutory authority for the promulgation and (2) the formality of the promulgation. ... The financial directive at issue was not promulgated pursuant to any specific congressional authority. Even more detrimental to the defendant’s case is the fact that the directive clearly lacks the requisite formality. In fact, Financial Directive No. 2 appears to be nothing more than a letter from the Office of Analysis and Supervision suggesting how best to structure sales of the type involved in this case. The directive was not promulgated in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, nor was it published in the Code of Federal Regulations. In short, Financial Directive No. 2 does not rise to the level of a “law of the United States.”

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over claims that federal officials violated the Fifth Amendment and binding federal agency regulations.

Ramon ex rel. Ramon v. Soto · filed 1989-11-15

Plaintiffs asserted below that defendants’ conduct violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and specific procedural requirements imposed by BIA regulations. The district court thus had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1988).

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when a plaintiff’s right to relief depends on interpreting duties imposed by federal law.

Andrean v. Secretary of the United States Army · filed 1993-12-06

The court finds that Ms. Andrean’s right to relief necessarily depends on the construction, interpretation and effect of her rights under FUSFSPA. ... Thus, the court finds that Ms. Andrean’s claim arises under the laws of the United States, and that jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when federal law supports only one of several theories for relief on a state-law claim.

Peele v. ENTERPRISE LEASING CO. NORFOLK/RICHMOND · filed 1997-10-10

The invocation of federal law when it supports only one of several theories under which the plaintiff seeks relief, is not sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based on a federal statute that provides no private cause of action.

Campbell v. General Motors Corp. · filed 1998-09-08

As noted above, the MVSA provides no private civil remedies at all. Thus this court must conclude that even if the plaintiffs’ state law claims were based on violations of the MVSA, no federal question jurisdiction would exist.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence per se claim merely because an ADA violation supplies its standard of care.

Struffolino v. McCoy, et al. · filed 2005-07-14

Moreover, plaintiff's reliance upon the ADA to provide the standard of care for his negligence per se claim does not transform that claim into a federal question for purposes of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving interpretation of regulations promulgated by a federal agency.

Duncan v. Muzyn · filed 2016-08-12

Because this case involves the interpretation of regulations promulgated by a federal agency, see Kinzer, 142 F.2d at 837–38, the district court had jurisdiction to hear this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

An SEC settlement order is not a federal law within Section 1331, so a private action to enforce that order does not arise under federal law.

Walsh v. Butcher & Sherrerd · filed 1975-05-30

Plaintiff’s second asserted jurisdictional basis is 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff claims that this action arises under the laws of the United States and that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $10,000. However, it is clear that plaintiff’s claim arises under no federal law. Rather, her asserted right depends upon an S.E.C. order which is not a law within the meaning of § 1331. Therefore, plaintiff cannot rely on this section to overcome her inability to ground jurisdiction under § 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction over an action against federal officials in their official capacities arising from enforcement of an executive order issued under statutory authority and having the force of federal law.

Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Marshall · filed 1977-10-06(a)

Jurisdiction under § 1331(a) lies in an action against a federal agency or any officer thereof acting in his official capacity whenever the matter in controversy “arises under the Constitution, [or] laws . of the United States.” ... This action is brought against federal agency officials with respect to acts done in their official capacity in purporting to enforce the Order. I find that the matter in controversy arises under the laws of the United States within the meaning of § 1331(a).

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction for a claim seeking restitution of money paid under a federal court's erroneous injunction, whether pursued in the original case or a subsequent action.

Johnson v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. · filed 1977-12-19

Plaintiff in this case seeks restitution of monies paid pursuant to this Court’s prior erroneous injunction. That claim in and of itself states a federal question which brings into existence subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Simply stated, a federal district court has jurisdiction in the same case or in a subsequent case to correct its own errors, particularly when it is directed so to do by the Supreme Court of the United States.

An agency policy pronouncement that was not issued under statutory authority sufficient to create judicially enforceable rights cannot support jurisdiction under Section 1331(a).

Chasse v. Chasen · filed 1979-09-08(a)

We agree with Judge Gignoux that the Customs Service Circular at issue was not promulgated pursuant to the type of statutory authority necessary for a right to judicial enforcement. This policy pronouncement, or Circular, is therefore an insufficient basis for subject matter jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) [laws] or § 1346(a)(2) [regulations], and plaintiffs’ cause must fail.

An IRS statement of internal procedural rules that lacks the force and effect of law cannot support Section 1331(a) jurisdiction as a claim arising under federal laws.

John Doe Corp. v. Miller · filed 1980-10-10(a)

At the outset, it is clear that jurisdiction cannot be exercised over this case as one arising under the “laws” of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). The Statement of Procedural Rules, of which § 601.107(b)(2) is a part, is promulgated by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the regulation of the internal affairs of his office and does not have the force and effect of law.

Section 1331 requires a federal issue on the face of the complaint and a claim founded directly on federal law; construing an earlier federal judgment that merely applied state law does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

Leo and Willie Epps v. Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Counties Water Improvement District No. 1 · filed 1982-01-11

Several statutes, including 28 U.S.C. § 1331 which is invoked by plaintiffs-appellants, confer subject matter jurisdiction in cases raising federal questions. ... In order for a case to come within the ambit of federal question jurisdiction, the federal issue must appear on the face, of the complaint, ... and must involve a claim founded directly on federal law. ... The mere fact that a suit involves the construction and effect of an earlier order or judgment of a federal court does not automatically clothe the dispute in a federal question jurisdictional garment. ... We find no federal question jurisdiction herein as a mere consequence of the entry of the 1922 judgment.

Section 1331 is properly invoked only when the plaintiff pleads a claim for which federal law supplies an essential element.

Chappell v. SCA Services, Inc. · filed 1982-05-03

The specific principles applicable to pleading federal question jurisdiction are well-settled. 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.

Validly issued federal administrative regulations are laws of the United States that can support arising-under jurisdiction under § 1331.

Confederated Housing Associates, Inc. v. Department of Housing & Urban Development · filed 1982-05-17

We agree with the plaintiff that jurisdiction is established under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Therefore “[i]t is beyond dispute that validly issued administrative regulations ... may be treated as ‘laws of the United States’ under Section 1331(a).”

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over claims that require interpretation of or challenge an agreement contained in a federal court order.

Egri v. Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co. · filed 2002-06-20

Those claims arise under federal law because each requires interpretation of and/or launches a challenge against the Agreement contained in the Order, which constitutes a “law of the United States” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint necessarily requires interpretation of a federal court order.

Ohio Ex Rel. Skaggs v. Brunner · filed 2008-11-17

The Court has indeed looked to the substance of the Complaint and finds a federal question on its face. Paragraph 18 of the Complaint specifically invokes and relies on the Secretary’s duty to follow and failure to comply with Directive 2008-101, which is a federal court order. Thus, removal is proper.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under Executive Orders Nos. 10988 and 11491 because those orders are not laws of the United States.

Kuhn v. National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 5 and International Association of Letter Carriers and Un · filed 1978-02-15

As correctly determined by the District Court, however, these Executive Orders are not “laws of the United States” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and, therefore, do not confer subject matter jurisdiction on a federal court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim against a credit union merely because the credit union was established under federal law.

HAHN v. GARDEN SAVINGS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION · filed 2021-07-14

Although Garden Savings was established through the Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1752 et seq., this does not imply that the credit union is subject to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims against the TVA as claims arising under federal law.

Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority · filed 2021-04-09

The court has jurisdiction over this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a claim “arising under” a law of the United States.

Section 1331 provides original jurisdiction over cases involving a federally created corporation when the United States owns more than half its capital stock, even if no construction of federal law is disputed.

Latch v. Tennessee Valley Authority · filed 1970-05-12(a)

In spite of frequent judicial disapproval and criticism, however, federal courts still have original jurisdiction of all cases involving federally-created corporations where the United States owns more than half the capital stock, as is the case with TVA. ... This is true even though no construction of the Act of Congress under which the action arises is in question.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims against a wholly owned federal corporation created by an Act of Congress.

Wayne v. Tennessee Valley Authority · filed 1984-04-23(a)

While it is true that a claim against a wholly owned federal corporation created under an Act of Congress, such as TVA, falls within the general grant of federal question jurisdiction found in § 1331, ... that does not of itself settle the choice of law question.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction, so it does not authorize them to hear appeals from state court judgments.

Behr v. Campbell · filed 2021-08-12

First, federal district courts are courts of original jurisdiction—they generally cannot hear ... appeals. Id. at 291–92 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1331).

Section 1331 permits federal district courts to hear a general constitutional challenge to a state court practice when deciding the challenge does not require review of a particular state court decision.

Tesmer v. Granholm · filed 2000-03-31

Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims are, therefore, not inextricably intertwined, with the state court’s denial of appointed counsel to these Plaintiffs and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply.

Section 1331 supports the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which does not bar federal bankruptcy courts from considering collateral challenges to state court actions concerning the automatic stay.

In Re Robert Gruntz, Debtor. Robert Gruntz v. Opinion County of Los Angeles Los Angeles District Attorney · filed 2000-02-03

Thus, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is not implicated by collateral challenges to the automatic stay in bankruptcy.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction, but it does not permit them to collaterally review a state-court judgment through an inextricably intertwined federal claim that could have been raised in state court.

Powell v. Powell · filed 1996-04-15

The doctrine has two statutory bases: (1) 28 U.S.C. § 1257, which limits federal review of state court proceedings to the United States Supreme Court, and (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that federal district courts are courts of original jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, we hold that under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine the district court lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Powell's claim that the FSPA is unconstitutional as applied to him.

Section 1331 requires federal law to be necessary to resolving the dispute and does not permit a district court to review a state court's allegedly unfair application of state law.

Country Club Tower Corp. v. Tower Management Corp. · filed 1967-11-13

A federal question for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 arises only when the application of the constitution or a federal statute is necessary to a resolution of the dispute which is the subject matter of the civil action. A federal question for the purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not arise because of claims that in the application of state law a state court which does have jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter acts without notice or unfairly.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction merely because a party alleges that an erroneous state-court judgment denied due process.

Resolute Insurance v. North Carolina · filed 1967-12-07(a)

Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331 does not afford a basis for jurisdiction in the federal court upon the allegation that a judgment of the State Court was erroneous, arbitrary and capricious and that the plaintiff was thus denied due process of law.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when a complaint fails to allege a claim arising under federal law and instead seeks district-court review of a state divorce judgment.

Pilkinton v. Pilkinton · filed 1968-02-19

From an analysis of the complaint and the supporting documents we, too, are convinced that no basis exists for invoking the jurisdiction of the federal courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is not applicable as both appellant and the defendant are citizens of the State of Missouri. The complaint utterly fails to allege a claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Gulley v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112-113, 57 S.Ct. 96, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936); Stanturf v. Sipes, 335 F.2d 224 (8th Cir. 1964).

Section 1331 supplies only original jurisdiction and does not permit a federal district court to conduct collateral appellate review of a state-court judgment.

Thompson v. Groshens · filed 1972-04-10

The proposition that the jurisdiction of the district court is strictly original, and that it may not act as an appellate tribunal for state court decisions hardly needs recitation. Neither does unsuccessful resort through the route of the state and United States Supreme Courts empower the district court to act.

Section 1331 does not let a federal district court nullify a state-court judgment when the asserted constitutional issues were conclusively decided in the state proceedings; review must be sought in the Supreme Court.

Louis Ender, Inc. v. General Foods Corporation · filed 1972-09-29

The proper procedure for End-er to follow in order to vindicate what it asserts to be its constitutional rights was to appeal the decision of the state courts to the Supreme Court. Absent such an appeal, the constitutional issues were conclusively determined against Ender, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); Angel v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183, 186-187, 67 S.Ct. 657, 91 L.Ed. 832 (1947).

Section 1331 does not authorize a federal district court to review a state supreme court decision concerning the validity of a local ordinance under state law.

DeKalb County v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. · filed 1972-10-30

It appears the plaintiff is seeking a review of this Georgia Supreme Court decision and this court is without the authority to entertain such a question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq.

Section 1331 grants original jurisdiction and cannot be used to obtain lower-federal-court appellate review of a state supreme court judgment.

Adkins v. Underwood · filed 1974-01-16

While lower federal courts were given certain power in the Judiciary Act of 1789, they were not given any power to directly review cases from state courts, and they have not been given such powers since that time.

Section 1331 does not authorize a lower federal court to sit in direct review of a state-court decision.

Joachim Memorial Home v. Askew · filed 1975-12-20

First, this Court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter because “lower federal courts possess no power whatever to sit in direct review of state court decisions.”

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court appellate jurisdiction to review and correct a state-court judgment for alleged federal constitutional error.

E-C Tape Service, Inc. v. Barron · filed 1976-07-09

Nevertheless, the essence of the amended complaint in this matter is that the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County committed error of constitutional dimensions in the issuance of its contempt order and the underlying injunction. This court is, in effect, being asked to review the state Circuit Court’s actions and correct the error. This a federal district court may not do.

Section 1331 does not give federal district courts appellate jurisdiction to review state-court judgments for alleged constitutional violations.

Reynolds v. State of Georgia George Busbee, Individually and as Governor of Georgia · filed 1981-03-26

If to review such a judgment for Constitutional violations of that character is essentially an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, a Federal District Court, whose jurisdiction is strictly original, has no power to entertain such a suit.

Section 1331 grants original jurisdiction over a sufficiently pleaded constitutional challenge, while an attempt to relitigate an adverse state-court ruling is addressed through preclusion rather than lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Korup v. Flaherty · filed 1981-10-27

The defendants initially contend that this action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). I disagree. Plaintiff’s complaint pleads facts sufficient to support the jurisdiction of this court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. ... If, in fact, plaintiff is attempting to relitigate issues already determined by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the defendants’ attack on his complaint is more properly based upon principles of res judicata, not subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not itself create federal jurisdiction; it confers jurisdiction only when a federal question is otherwise at issue, and a previously adjudicated federal question cannot be relitigated to invoke it.

Kershaw v. Federal Land Bank of Louisville · filed 1983-02-09

The plaintiffs seek to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, asserting that their reliance on the Farm Credit Act of 1971 raises a federal question. ... “28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers jurisdiction only where a federal question is otherwise at issue: it does not create federal jurisdiction. The federal questions appellant attempts to assert were raised in previous proceedings and are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.” ... The federal question the plaintiffs attempt to raise in this suit ... is the very same grounds for their claim against the defendants in the prior suit. ... Accordingly, this Court will give res judicata effect to the judgment of the Chancery Court dismissing the prior action with prejudice and the plaintiffs will be barred from litigating the same issues anew.

Section 1331 gives a district court original jurisdiction over a federal issue that did not and could not reasonably have figured in a prior state-court decision, so the Rooker bar does not apply to that issue.

Beatrice S. Wood and Sandra Surburg Ritter, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Orange County a · filed 1983-09-30

Stating it another way, because the issue did not figure, and could not reasonably have figured, in the state court’s decision, the district court has “original” jurisdiction over the issue as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331's original jurisdiction does not authorize a federal district court to act as an appellate tribunal reviewing issues already decided in a state-court judgment.

MacKay v. Pfeil · filed 1987-09-04

MacKay’s claims should be resolved by Alaska’s appellate courts, not by a federal court of original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not permit a district court to review final state-court judgments through an independent federal action alleging that those judgments violated federal rights.

Silva v. Silva · filed 1988-02-29

He cannot now obtain federal court review of final state court decisions by filing an independent action in federal court.

Section 1331 does not authorize district-court appellate review of a state criminal judgment or substitute for habeas jurisdiction under Section 2254.

Au v. State · filed 1989-04-12

Thus, if Au’s action in this Court is construed as an appeal from the state court judgment, it must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ... However, the complaint is not in the form of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and the jurisdiction of this Court is expressly premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 rather than on 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Section 1331 does not authorize a federal district court to review state-court judicial proceedings merely because the losing party recasts alleged state-court errors as a due-process violation.

Kenneth T. Bosley, Personal Representative of the Estate of Webster Bosley v. Dairymen, Inc., and Daniel M. Bosley · filed 1989-07-24

Contrary to the district court's reasoning, Bosley's claim that he was denied property without due process of law because of the state court civil proceedings did not give the district court jurisdiction over the case. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983). Bosley sought a review of state court proceedings in federal district court because he believed that the state courts had erroneously overlooked evidence and because of purported conflicts of interest. Neither the district court nor this Court has jurisdiction to review the judicial proceedings of a state court. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 476-79.

Section 1331 grants district courts original rather than appellate jurisdiction, so a district court cannot overturn an adjudicative order of a state's highest court even when the challenge is framed as a federal civil-rights claim.

Ross v. Zavarella · filed 1990-03-20

The injunctive remedy sought would effectively overturn that order. Such a reversal would be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction and, therefore, outside the scope of this court’s authority. ... The United States District Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, whose grant of authority is derived from statute. District Courts are granted original, not appellate, jurisdiction in most instances. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not authorize a federal district court to exercise appellate review over state-court judgments merely because the plaintiff recasts the challenge as a federal constitutional claim.

Kansas Ass'n of Public Employees v. Kansas, Department of Human Resources · filed 1990-05-04

thus, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and must grant defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to review a state court decision, even when the challenge alleges that the state court acted unconstitutionally.

Samuel v. Michaud · filed 1996-03-07

Federal district courts do not have jurisdiction even if the challenges to a state court decision allege that the state court’s action was unconstitutional.

Section 1331 grants federal district courts original jurisdiction only and does not authorize appellate review of state court decisions.

Hart v. Comerica Bank · filed 1997-02-24

Furthermore, because 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332 only grant original jurisdiction to the inferior federal courts, they may not engage in appellate review of state decisions.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to review a state court decision merely because the challenge is framed as a federal civil rights claim.

Tufano v. Alpert · filed 1997-06-27

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a federal court has jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... It is clear from the allegations of the complaint that Plaintiff is not raising an independent civil rights claim, but instead is objecting to Justice Alpert’s decisions in the state court case.

Section 1331 gives district courts original federal-question jurisdiction but does not authorize them to review state-court jurisdictional decisions.

Olson Farms, Inc. v. Barbosa · filed 1998-01-16

If the district court had jurisdiction, it was pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but whether it did is the very question we must decide. ... Purely and simply, Olson submitted the jurisdictional claim to the state courts and now seeks to have the federal courts adjudicate that selfsame jurisdictional claim. That we cannot do. Olson’s remedy was to seek review in the United States Supreme Court; that was its only federal remedy.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over federal questions but does not permit them to reexamine final state-court judgments under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

COOPER-JOLLEY v. Lyttle · filed 1998-02-25

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is based on jurisdictional limitations provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1257. ... Reviewing Plaintiffs claims in the case at bar would necessarily result in reexamining the decision of the juvenile court. Therefore, this Court should not consider Plaintiffs claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction, but no authority to review state court decisions under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Bosdorf v. Beach · filed 1999-11-12

Second, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that U.S. district courts are courts of original jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, district courts are without jurisdiction to sit in review of state court decisions.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over federal questions but does not authorize them to review state court decisions, even when the challenge raises federal constitutional issues.

Salman v. Rose · filed 2000-07-03

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over any injury related to the Nevada Supreme Court Order filed January 7, 2000 because federal district courts may exercise only original jurisdiction; they may not exercise appellate jurisdiction over State court decisions. ... This rule arises from two jurisdictional statutes: 28 U.S.C. section 1331, which grants district courts original jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under federal law,” and 28 U.S.C. section 1257, which grants the United States Supreme Court the right to review “final judgments ... rendered by the highest court of a State.” ... Mr. Salman’s Complaint is nothing more than an impermissible collateral attack on a prior State court decision. ... Therefore, this court is without subject matter jurisdiction to grant the relief Mr. Salman seeks.

Section 1331 gives district courts original federal-question jurisdiction, which does not allow them to review state-court decisions as appellate courts.

Schmitt v. Schmitt · filed 2001-09-26

The doctrine is a negative inference drawn from the fact that federal district courts are courts of original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes federal jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over federal questions but does not authorize them to review state court judgments.

Gambino v. Rubenfeld · filed 2002-01-05

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257, the United States Supreme Court has exclusive federal jurisdiction to review state court judgments while, on the other hand, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1334 confer upon federal district courts original but not appellate jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction, but the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents them from using that jurisdiction to review a final state court ruling, even when the federal action was filed first.

GAYFER MONTGOMERY FAIR CO. v. Austin · filed 2002-09-24

The doctrine has two statutory bases: (1) 28 U.S.C. § 1257, which limits federal review of state court proceedings to the United States Supreme Court, and (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1331 which provides that federal district courts are courts of original jurisdiction. ... This court must conclude, therefore, that neither of Dillard’s arguments against the application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in this case establish that this court has jurisdiction now that the state court has acted.

Section 1331 grants original jurisdiction over general constitutional challenges to state bar admission rules, but does not authorize district courts to review state-court judgments.

Dubuc v. Michigan Board of Law Examiners, George Googasian, State Bar of Michigan, and John Berry · filed 2003-09-03

“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine merely recognizes that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is a grant of original jurisdiction, and does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments.” ... Because Dubuc does not seek to have the district court overturn the denial of his 1998 application, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is inapplicable to this lawsuit.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction over a constitutional claim that in substance seeks appellate review of an adverse state-court judgment.

Hatcher v. Collins · filed 2003-09-24

We conclude that neither diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, nor federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, exists in this case. ... We also reject Plaintiff’s other proposed basis for federal jurisdiction, which she characterizes as a “federal question.” ... This theory does not provide a ground for reversing the district court’s ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, because a federal district court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the type of claim described by Plaintiff.

Section 1331 does not give district courts jurisdiction over constitutional claims whose resolution would require reviewing the validity of state-court rulings.

Chamberlain v. Court of Appeals · filed 2004-06-22

Chamberlain’s complaint is inextricably intertwined with the merits of her state-court suit, and examination of her claims of constitutional deprivations would require the district court to examine the validity of the state courts’ rulings. Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 grants federal district courts original jurisdiction but does not authorize them to review state-court judgments on appeal.

Industrial Communications & Electronics, Inc. v. Monroe County · filed 2005-05-27

Under 28 U.S.C. §1331, a federal district court is a court of original jurisdiction and, under 28 U.S.C. § 1257, federal appellate review of a state court proceeding is limited to the United States Supreme Court.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims, but does not permit them to review state court judgments when those claims are inextricably intertwined with the judgments.

Martyak v. Martyak · filed 2005-06-03

The Court further notes that there are two statutory bases for the aforementioned holding: “(1) 28 U.S.C. § 1257, which limits federal review of state court proceedings to the United States Supreme Court, and (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that federal district courts are courts of original jurisdiction.” ... The Court finds, therefore, that the claims of which Mr. Martyak seeks consideration in filing his Notice of Removal are inextricably intertwined with the aforementioned Final Judgment, and that pursuant to the above-cited language from Feldman, he impermissibly asks this Court to sit in review of that same Final Judgment.

Section 1331 grants district courts original jurisdiction over federal questions but does not authorize appellate review of state court judgments.

L.A.M. Recovery Inc. v. Department of Consumer Affairs · filed 2005-07-20

This rule, known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, “merely recognizes that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is a grant of original jurisdiction, and does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction.” ... Insofar as these are the alleged effects, however attenuated, of state court judgments, claims for compensation for such injuries are foreclosed by Rooker-Feldman.

Section 1331 does not give district courts appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments, except through habeas corpus petitions.

Horvath v. Neal · filed 2005-11-07

After de novo review, see Charchenko v. City of Stillwater, 47 F.3d 981, 982- 83 (8th Cir. 1995), we affirm because Horvath’s claims were barred either by the Rooker-Feldman2 doctrine, see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1523, 1526 & n.8 (2005) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine recognizes that with the exception of habeas corpus petitions, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not allow district courts appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments), or by res judicata, see id. at 1527 (federal court has to give same preclusive effect to a state-court judgment as another court of that State would give); Wells v. Ark. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 616 S.W.2d 718, 719 (Ark. 1981) (elements of res judicata).

Section 1331 grants district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, but not appellate jurisdiction to review state court decisions.

Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. · filed 2008-08-28

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the district courts are granted original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law. Hence, because of this explicit grant of original jurisdiction, the negative implication is that the district courts have no appellate jurisdiction to review state court decisions.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court subject matter jurisdiction to review the actions or rulings of other courts.

Dews v. WALDERN · filed 2008-12-05

This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the actions or rulings of other courts.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to review the actions or rulings of other courts.

Colter v. United States · filed 2009-03-10

This Court, however, lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the actions or rulings of other courts. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1150 (1995).

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, but no appellate jurisdiction to review state-court judgments.

Green v. Jefferson County Commission · filed 2009-03-31

First, section 1331 provides that federal district courts “shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising” under federal law, but does not provide for appellate jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, this case was not a de facto appeal from a final state court judgment and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not divest the federal district court of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to review a state supreme court decision as an appellate court.

Kinney v. Connecticut · filed 2009-06-05

This Court does not have jurisdiction to conduct an appellate review of a decision from a state supreme court.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over federal-question cases but does not authorize appellate review of state-court decisions.

Van Tassel v. Lawrence County Domestic Relations Section · filed 2009-09-22

As a “district court” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, this Court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” ... Congress has not authorized this Court to exercise “appellate jurisdiction” in cases of this kind.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to review a state-court decision.

Bagby v. Chu · filed 2013-03-04

jurisdiction is wanting because a federal district court is not a reviewing court and, thus, lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of a state court.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court subject matter jurisdiction to review state-court decisions through a claim for injunctive relief.

Calderon v. Brown · filed 2015-01-15

As a general rule applicable here, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of another court and, therefore, cannot entertain plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to act as a reviewing court or compel another court to act.

Lopes v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC · filed 2015-02-05

Further, this Court is not a reviewing court and lacks jurisdiction to compel another court to act. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); see also Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994) (under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts lack authority to collaterally review state court judgments) (citing Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)).

Section 1331 does not authorize a federal district court to review state-court judgments or compel a state court to act.

Bradley v. Federal National Mortgage Association · filed 2015-02-05

This Court is not a reviewing court and lacks jurisdiction to compel another court to act. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); see also Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994) (under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts lack authority to collaterally review state court judgments) (citing Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)).

Section 1331 does not authorize a federal district court to review a state-court judgment or compel another court to act.

Swiatkowski v. Bank of America, Corp. · filed 2015-02-26

This Court is not a reviewing court and it lacks jurisdiction to compel another court to act. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions).

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, but does not give them appellate jurisdiction to review state-court judgments.

Waisome v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA · filed 2017-08-11

“The [Rooker-Feldman] doctrine is also shaped by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides federal district courts with original jurisdiction, rather than appellate jurisdiction, of all civil actions arising under federal law.” ... The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevented the district court from exercising jurisdiction over the Waisomes’ suit.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to review a state-court judgment, even when the challenge is framed as a constitutional claim.

Masomi v. Madadi · filed 2018-03-01

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 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. The complaint purports to assert a claim based on the United States Constitution. However, the court is without subject-matter jurisdiction over claims relating to plaintiff’s divorce proceedings, among other reasons, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Section 1331 grants district courts original jurisdiction but does not authorize appellate review of state-court judgments.

Rosado v. Depalo · filed 2018-05-02

“The Rooker–Feldman doctrine merely recognizes that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is a grant of original jurisdiction, and ... does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments, which Congress has reserved to this Court, see § 1257(a).” ... Here, Rosado explicitly asks this Court to review and reject the judgments of the state court. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court lacks jurisdiction to do so.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to review the judgments of another district court.

Barroca v. Hurwitz · filed 2018-09-28

This Court cannot do it because it lacks jurisdiction to review the propriety of the judgments issued by the Northern District of California.

Section 1331 grants district courts original jurisdiction but does not authorize appellate review of state court judgments.

Swain v. Stewart · filed 2019-05-20

Relevantly here, this Court is not empowered to sit as an appellate court to review the decisions of state courts. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); see also Verizon Md. Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 644, n. 3 (2002) (“… 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is a grant of original jurisdiction, and does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments”).

Section 1331 limits federal district courts to original jurisdiction and does not authorize them to review state court judgments.

In re Lester · filed 2019-06-20

Because 28 U.S.C. § 1257 grants the U.S. Supreme Court exclusive federal jurisdiction to review state court judgments and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 limits the jurisdiction of district courts to original-not appellate-jurisdiction, the Rooker - Feldman doctrine generally recognizes that federal district courts, such as this one, lack jurisdiction to review state court judgments.

Section 1331 grants district courts original federal-question jurisdiction but does not authorize them to hear de facto appeals of state-court judgments.

Kosachuk v. Selective Advisors Group, LLC · filed 2019-09-30

Because federal district courts are granted only original -- and not appellate -- jurisdiction, compare 28 U.S.C. § 1331, with 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a), cases that function as de facto appeals of state-court judgments are jurisdictionally barred.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over federal questions, not appellate jurisdiction to review state-court judgments.

O'Connell v. Montana Supreme Court · filed 2019-11-07

Federal district courts have original, not appellate, jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). Only the United States Supreme Court may “entertain a proceeding to reverse or modify the judgment” of a state court. Rooker, 263 U.S. at 415-16. This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the O’Connells’ claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a challenge to a state foreclosure judgment because foreclosure judgments are matters of state law.

Hall v. Gonzales · filed 2020-01-13

Succinctly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as it is well settled that judgments of foreclosure are fundamentally matters of state law.

Section 1331 does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments.

Greenstein v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2020-02-12

It appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims. The Rooker Feldman doctrine “recognizes that 28 U.S.C. § 1331... does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments, which Congress has reserved to [the Supreme Court]... .” Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Maryland, 535 U.S. 635, 644 n.3, 122 S. Ct. 1753, 152 L. Ed. 2d 871 (2002).

Section 1331 gives district courts original federal-question jurisdiction but does not permit them to review final state-court child-support orders or judgments.

Legister v. Radowitz · filed 2020-12-16

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, however, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to consider any of Plaintiff's claims challenging the validity or enforcement of the Family Court’s final orders or judgments.

Section 1331 grants original federal-question jurisdiction but does not authorize district courts to review state-court judgments on appeal.

Gristina v. Merchan · filed 2022-05-19

The doctrine “recognizes that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is a grant of original jurisdiction, and does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments,” with such federal jurisdiction reserved exclusively for the Supreme Court of the United States.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to hear federal claims as original matters, but does not authorize them to review state-court judgments.

Graham v. UMH IN Holiday Village, LLC · filed 2022-08-31

But § 1331 concerns a district court’s jurisdiction to hear claims as an original matter. Here, the state courts already approved the eviction, and federal district courts cannot review state-court judgments.

Section 1331 does not authorize district courts to review or alter state court judgments.

Kasbekar v. Ivy Station Community Association, Inc. · filed 2022-11-28

First, federal district courts gener- ally cannot hear appeals. Id. at 291–92 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1331). And second, neither district courts nor the circuits can touch state court judgments; only the Supreme Court can “reverse or modify” them. Id. at 283 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a)). Permitting federal district courts to alter or directly review the judgments of state courts would violate both of those jurisdictional grants.

Section 1331 grants district courts original federal-question jurisdiction, but does not authorize them to review final state court judgments.

Tanner v. MTA Long Island Railroad · filed 2023-01-17

Under that doctrine, federal district courts lack authority to review final state court orders and judgments where the federal court plaintiff seeks relief that invites the federal court to reject or overturn the state court judgment. ... The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars this Court from reviewing such challenges.