28 U.S.C. § 1331

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

Dunlap v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department · filed 2023-08-29

“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.” ... Such review is “prohibited under Rooker-Feldman.”

Section 1331 does not authorize district courts to review state court judgments as appellate courts.

Hart v. Shmayenik · filed 2023-10-30

Federal district courts, however, lack authority to review state court orders and judgments. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 292 (2005); see also Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 644 n.3 (2002) (holding that the statute authorizing original federal jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments[.]”); Dorce v. City of New York, 2 F.4th 82, 101 (2d Cir. 2021) (district courts are barred from “hearing cases that in effect are appeals from state court judgments, because the Supreme Court [of the United States] is the only federal court with jurisdiction over such cases.” (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1257)).

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

Wright v. Administration of Children Services · filed 2024-02-14

Moreover, federal district courts lack authority to review state court judgments. See 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, which Congress has reserved to [the United States Supreme] Court.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) (“Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court . . . .”). The Court therefore lacks authority to review or overturn any Family Court decisions about custody of Plaintiff’s children.

Section 1331 does not give federal district courts appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments.

Wain v. U.S. Bank Trust National Association · filed 2024-02-16

Stated differently, the doctrine makes clear that the subject matter jurisdiction conferred to federal district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not authorize appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments.

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

Maddox v. Jordan · filed 2024-04-22

To the extent that Plaintiff asks this Court to overturn a final order or judgment issued in his concluded child support proceedings in the Family Court, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine requires the dismissal of his claims for such relief. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal district court lacks authority to review a final state court order or judgment where a litigant seeks relief that invites the federal district court to reject or overturn such a final state court order or judgment.

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

Robinson v. Sedgwick Claims Management Service · filed 2024-05-28

Federal district courts play no role in reviewing the denial of worker’s compensation benefits, and no appeal to this Court is available from a decision of the state court.

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

Pinkard v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2024-09-04

Plaintiff has been repeatedly advised that federal district courts do not hear appeals from state court decisions and lack authority to “reverse” state court decisions. Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 644 n.3 (2002) (holding that the statute authorizing original federal jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments[.]”); ... Because Plaintiff cannot ask this Court to reverse any decision of the state court and cannot relitigate issues that have been finally decided by a court as between the parties, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend to clarify her allegations that she is or was not a probationary employee of the DOE.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an action seeking to enforce state-court judgments.

Pereira v. New York City Department of Justice · filed 2024-12-02

Thus, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s action seeking to enforce state court judgments.

Section 1331 grants original jurisdiction and does not authorize district courts to review state-court judgments.

CUSHING v. GREENTREE MORTGAGE COMPANY, LP · filed 2025-01-28

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits district courts from relying on their original jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of state-court orders. ... Upon reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court finds that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies.

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

Mezzella · filed 2025-09-18

Plaintiff also seems to ask this Court, under its federal question jurisdiction, to overturn what appears to be her state court conviction that occurred following her arrest on September 10, 2022, and her subsequent guilty plea on July 8, 2023; the Court must dismiss such claims. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal district court lacks authority to review a final state court order or judgment where the plaintiff seeks relief that invites the federal district court to reject or overturn such a final state court order or judgment.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to review a state custody decision merely because the plaintiff invokes federal law or names a federal defendant.

Pittman v. United States of America · filed 2026-01-02

Relevant here, federal district courts generally lack jurisdiction to review or interfere with judicial decisions made by state and local courts, and Plaintiff cannot now circumvent that prohibition by bringing this matter under the auspices of federal legal authority or against a federal defendant.

Section 1331 does not give district courts jurisdiction to review or enjoin state-court orders, including interlocutory orders.

Moore · filed 2026-01-29

Though, whether jurisdiction is alleged by way of Section 1331 or Section 1343, district courts are generally without jurisdiction to review the final judgments of a state court, as such federal jurisdiction tends to lie exclusively with the Supreme Court of the United States. See RLR Invs., LLC v. City of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, 4 F.4th 380, 385 (6th Cir. 2021). Similarly, “federal district courts don’t have jurisdiction over appeals of interlocutory state-court orders.” Id. In this regard, Moore’s claim of extraordinary circumstances is irrelevant. The Court does not have jurisdiction to enjoin the Dayton Municipal Court’s orders.

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

Burnett · filed 2026-02-10

“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).” ... His lawsuit is precisely the type of action that is precluded by the Rooker-Feldman and Younger abstention doctrines.

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

David Cushing and Carona Cushing v. Lakeview Loan Servicing · filed 2026-03-10

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits district courts from relying on their original jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of state-court orders. ... Here, the Court finds that all the requirements of Rooker-Feldman are satisfied with respect to Plaintiffs’ challenge to the validity of the foreclosure judgment for the same reasons stated in Cushing I.

Section 1331 grants district courts original federal-question jurisdiction but does not authorize them to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments.

T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · filed 2026-06-18

As this Court ex- plained in Exxon, the doctrine “ ‘recognizes that 28 U. S. C. §1331 is a grant of original jurisdiction, and does not au- thorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments, which Congress has reserved to this Court, see §1257(a).’ ” 544 U. S., at 292 (quoting Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U. S. 635, 644, n. 3 (2002)).

Section 1331 grants district courts original federal-question jurisdiction but does not authorize them to review and invalidate state-court judgments, even while state appeals remain pending.

T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation Revisions: 6/19/26 · filed 2026-06-18

As this Court ex- plained in Exxon, the doctrine “ ‘recognizes that 28 U. S. C. §1331 is a grant of original jurisdiction, and does not au- thorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments, which Congress has reserved to this Court, see §1257(a).’ ” 544 U. S., at 292 (quoting Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U. S. 635, 644, n. 3 (2002)). ... None of these cases suggests that district courts have jurisdiction to review state-court judg- ments, and declare them void, so long as the judgments are not yet within this Court’s §1257 jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to review and invalidate a final state-court foreclosure judgment.

Chiu · filed 2026-06-25

It is therefore apparent that the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief Plaintiff seeks, because doing so would effectively invalidate a final order issued in a state court foreclosure proceeding.

Section 1331 does not give district courts appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments.

Arnold v. Slattery · filed 2019-08-15

Moreover, the Supreme Court has explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 “does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments, which Congress has reserved to this Court.” Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 644 n.3 (2002).

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

Butcher v. Wendt · filed 2020-09-22

28 U.S.C. § 1331, on the other hand, “is a grant of original jurisdiction, and does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments.” Id. at 292.

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

Jonathan R. v. Justice · filed 2022-07-20

But as Exxon reminds us, the Rooker-Feldman ... doctrine “merely recognizes that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is a grant of original jurisdiction” that “does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments.”

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; invoking federal law to seek review of a state court judgment does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Philips v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc. · filed 2024-12-17

Federal question jurisdiction exists when an action arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In order for an action to “arise under” federal law, a plaintiff’s requested relief must present a federal question at the time of removal. ... Plaintiff does not adequately assert federal question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to review a state supreme court's attorney-discipline judgment by relabeling the challenge as an original federal equitable action.

Jones v. Hulse · filed 1967-04-11

The plaintiff’s contention is without merit. Regardless of the label that the plaintiff is attempting to put upon the present action, it is obviously nothing more than an attempt to have this court review the mandate of the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri suspending the plaintiff’s right to practice law in Missouri.

Section 1331(a) does not give a district court original jurisdiction over a state attorney-disciplinary proceeding that is not founded on a federal claim or right, so the proceeding cannot be removed under Section 1441.

In Re Bogart · filed 1974-11-27(a)

I am of the opinion that 28 U.S. C. §§ 1331(a) or 1332 do not grant jurisdiction to this court because although diversity is present this court has no original jurisdiction of matters arising out of section 90(4) of the Judiciary Law of New York. Thus removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) is not supportable since that section requires original jurisdiction. Furthermore, this applies to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) because the proceeding under section 90(4) is not “founded on a claim or right under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States.”

Section 1331 permits a constitutional challenge to a state supreme court's administrative rule governing bar reexamination when the plaintiff does not seek review of an individual judicial decision.

Younger v. Colorado State Board of Bar Examiners · filed 1980-01-17

Accordingly, the plaintiff here is not seeking review of the judicial determination made as to his application; he is contesting the Court’s administrative act in adopting a rule limiting the opportunity for re-examination. There is, therefore, jurisdiction to consider this constitutional claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3).

Section 1331 may reach a general constitutional challenge to bar-admission rules, but it does not authorize a district court to review a highest local court's judicial denial of admission to a particular applicant.

Powell v. Nigro · filed 1982-07-28

... The first type of claim involves review of the legislative or rulemaking authority of the state’s highest court and thus may fall within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. ... The second type of claim involves review of an exercise of judicial power by the state’s highest court and thus falls outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts because such actions are only subject to review by petitioning the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to review a final state supreme court disciplinary judgment.

Michaelis v. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n · filed 1983-05-06

Furthermore, even if such allegations were made, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Michaelis’s complaint because he seeks review of a final judgment by the Nebraska Supreme Court. ... But in the instant case there is no indication that Michaelis is making a facial challenge to state supreme court-promulgated disciplinary rules. His complaint stems from the application of those rules to him and he asks only for damages by way of relief. Accordingly, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as to any and all constitutional claims raised by Michaelis relating to his disbarment.

Section 1331 does not authorize a federal district court to review a state court’s judicial attorney-discipline judgment, even when the plaintiff alleges that the judgment violated federal rights.

Zimmerman v. Grievance Committee of the Fifth Judicial District of New York · filed 1983-06-13

Plaintiff Aaron Mark Zimmerman brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... When a plaintiff seeks review of a state court judgment that results in his discipline, even when he asserts violations of federal rights, his appeal may be only to the Supreme Court. ... Zimmerman’s allegations that the judgment in state court resulted in constitutional deprivations are bound up with his assertions that he was improperly disciplined, and accordingly this court lacks jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a complaint seeking only to discipline a prosecutor for failing to disclose a defense counsel conflict of interest.

Matthews v. Pauze · filed 2014-02-18

The complaint neither presents a federal question nor pleads the requisite amount in controversy to establish diversity jurisdiction, and the authority to discipline attorneys under the supervision of this Court (not alleged to be the case here) is conferred upon the Committee on Grievances. LCvR 83.14; see LCvR 83.12 ("Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement"); LCvR 83.l6(d) (lodging a complaint of misconduct).

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to a state's general bar admission rule.

Younger v. Colorado State Board of Law Examiners · filed 1980-09-03

We feel that there is a sufficient basis for jurisdiction of Mr. Younger's claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3). By his constitutional claim he is challenging Colorado's adoption and enforcement of a rule which places a constriction on the number of times an otherwise qualified individual can take the Colorado bar examination.

Section 1331 gives a federal district court jurisdiction over a dispute between a member state and an interstate compact commission when resolving the dispute requires construing a congressionally approved compact.

Nebraska v. Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission · filed 1995-10-23

Because this case involves a challenge to the refusal of the Commission to seat additional representatives to the Commission; because the State of Nebraska, a party state to the Compact, is aggrieved by that decision; and because a construction of the Compact is inextricably interwoven with any resolution of Nebraska’s claims, this court has federal-question jurisdiction to hear this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Enforcement of a federally created compact between the United States and a state presents a federal question under section 1331.

Price v. State of Hawaii · filed 1985-06-25

We therefore hold that the enforcement of the Sec. 5(f) compact presents a federal question under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331(a).

Enforcement of a federally created compact between the United States and a state presents a federal question under section 1331.

Price v. Hawaii · filed 1985-06-25

We therefore hold that the enforcement of the § 5(f) compact presents a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

A case requiring judicial construction of an interstate compact approved by Congress arises under federal law within Section 1331(a).

League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency · filed 1975-03-17(a)

Therefore, a case involving the construction of an interstate compact which requires a judicial determination of the nature and scope of obligations set forth therein “arises” under the “laws” of. the United States within the meaning of § 1331(a).

Questions concerning the interpretation and application of ordinances enacted under a congressionally approved interstate compact present federal questions under Section 1331(a).

League to Save Lake Tahoe v. B.J.K. Corp. · filed 1976-12-08(a)

We hold that questions concerning the interpretation and application of TRPA ordinances present federal questions under Section 1331(a).

Section 1331(a) treats questions about the interpretation and application of ordinances enacted under the congressionally approved Tahoe interstate compact as federal questions.

League To Save Lake Tahoe v. B.J.K. Corporation · filed 1977-03-03(a)

We hold that questions concerning the interpretation and application of TRPA ordinances present federal questions under Section 1331(a).

A claim seeking construction of an interstate compact arises under federal law for § 1331 purposes, and a denial on the merits cannot defeat that jurisdiction.

Lakeside Community Hospital v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency · filed 1978-12-12

The plaintiffs’ first claim to relief plainly seeks a construction of the Compact and thus “arises under” the “laws” of the United States for purposes of invoking federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Federal question jurisdiction cannot be defeated by a plea denying the merits of the claim.

An action requiring construction of an interstate compact arises under federal law within Section 1331(a).

California Ex Rel. California Department of Transportation v. City of South Lake Tahoe · filed 1978-12-22(a)

Accordingly, since the present action involves the construction of the Compact in order to determine whether TRPA is subject of NEPA or CEQA and whether the City must comply with the approval provisions of CTRPA, we hold that this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331(a) gives federal courts jurisdiction, concurrent with state courts, to construe a congressionally approved interstate compact as a law of the United States.

Utah International Inc. v. Intake Water Co. · filed 1979-12-05(a)

This Court does, however, recognize its jurisdiction under § 1331(a), concurrent with that of the State of Montana, to construe the terms of the Compact.

Section 1331(a) reaches disputes over the interpretation and application of Tahoe Regional Planning Agency ordinances when interstate conflicts could substantially impair the governing interstate compact.

California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency v. N.S.C., Inc. · filed 1980-11-05(a)

Generally, questions concerning the interpretation and application of TRPA ordinances do present federal questions under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a); although state courts might have concurrent jurisdiction, where interstate conflicts may arise that could substantially affect the effective functioning of the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact between California and Nevada, a federal court has jurisdiction.

Section 1331(a) covers claims requiring interpretation of the Clean Air Act and review of actions alleged to impair an interstate planning compact.

California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency v. Harrah's Corp. · filed 1981-02-03(a)

Jurisdiction of the Court is based on federal questions, 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), and the Court’s pendent jurisdiction. Resolution of the case is substantially dependent upon the interpretation of 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(5)(A)(iii) and 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a) of the Clean Air Act. In addition, because plaintiffs allege that the actions of defendants Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and Douglas County (County) pursuant to the TRPA Land Use Ordinance will substantially affect the effective functioning of the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact (Compact), the Court has independent federal question jurisdiction to review such actions.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a controversy arising under a congressionally approved interstate compact.

Delaware Water Emergency Group v. Hansler · filed 1981-08-17

This controversy arises under the Compact, and under the laws of the United States — thus, there is jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when resolving a claim requires construction of a congressionally approved interstate compact.

State Ex Rel. Nelson v. CENTRAL INTERSTATE · filed 1993-10-08

This court does, however, have federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Inasmuch as I believe that a construction of the provisions of Article IV and Article V of the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact is inextricably interwoven with any resolution of Plaintiff's claims, I conclude that federal-question jurisdiction has been established.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a dispute arising under a congressionally sanctioned interstate compact because the compact is federal law.

STATE OF NY BY COUGHLIN v. Poe · filed 1993-10-08

As a congressionally sanctioned interstate compact, the Act constitutes federal law which brings the instant controversy within the court's federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 438-442, 101 S.Ct. 703, 706-707, 66 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when resolving a claim requires construction of a congressionally sanctioned interstate compact.

Nebraska ex rel. Nelson v. Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission · filed 1993-10-08

This court does, however, have federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Inasmuch as I believe that a construction of the provisions of Article IV and Article V of the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact is inextricably interwoven with any resolution of Plaintiffs claims, I conclude that federal-question jurisdiction has been established.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over disputes arising under a congressionally sanctioned interstate compact because the compact is federal law.

New York ex rel. Coughlin v. Poe · filed 1993-10-08

As a congressionally sanctioned interstate compact, the Act constitutes federal law which brings the instant controversy within the court's federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under a congressionally approved interstate compact because the compact is federal law.

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. v. Nebraska · filed 1999-04-16

This court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Commission’s claims under the federal question statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. An interstate compact, like this one, is a federal law. ... Accordingly, federal question jurisdiction is present to review the Commission’s claims.

Section 1331(a) cannot support jurisdiction without an Article III case or controversy between the plaintiff and the named defendants or redressable injury attributable to them.

McIntyre v. Morgan · filed 1985-09-13(a)

Accordingly, because the Court finds that this case presents no “case” or “controversy” as to these defendants, and since the Court further finds that the Court lacks jurisdiction at this time to aid plaintiff with discovery in his FCEA action, the Court finds that McCloskey’s motion to dismiss should be granted for the reason that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over Equal Pay Act claims, while the authority of a particular federal agency to sue presents a standing question rather than a jurisdictional one.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Appellant, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP., Appellee · filed 1985-06-20

First, Congress did not create jurisdiction over this lawsuit in enacting P.L. 98-532. The district courts have had federal question jurisdiction over such claims since the Equal Pay Act was enacted in 1964. ... 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982). The authority of one executive agency or another to institute such suits is properly characterized as a question of standing, and not one of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction depends on whether the complaint alleges a controversy arising under federal law, not on whether the plaintiff can prove the claim or ultimately prevail.

Gloria J. Ortiz De Arroyo v. Carlos Romero Barcelo, Etc. · filed 1985-06-26

Subject matter jurisdiction does not depend on the plaintiffs’ ability to prove the elements of their cause of action in their complaint. The complaint must merely demonstrate that the matter in controversy arose under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1331 requires a justiciable controversy, which allegations of subjective chill cannot establish without specific present harm or a threat of specific future harm.

The Fifth Avenue Peace Parade Committee, an Unincorporated Association v. L. Patrick Gray 3rd, Acting Director of the Fe · filed 1973-06-12

We believe that this case is governed by Laird v. Tatum ... and accordingly we affirm the judgment below on the ground that plaintiffs failed to present a justiciable controversy. ... In sum, although the plaintiffs here have singled out a particular and specific investigative incident, they have, as the court below found, failed to establish any specific harm, real or threatened. In our view they have failed to present a justiciable controversy and under ... Tatum ... we find no jurisdiction in the federal courts to entertain their action.

Section 1331 does not support judicial review of informal agency staff advice when it is not the agency's definitive position and withholding review causes no hardship.

Koss v. Securities & Exchange Commission of the United States · filed 1973-10-17

the issues are unfit for judicial review because staff comment letters do not represent the opinion of the Commission itself, and no hardship will be imposed on Koss if judicial action is withheld because the SEC does not appear reluctant to oversee its staff's activities throughout the administrative proceeding.

Section 1331 does not authorize relief when intervening statutory changes leave no justiciable controversy and therefore no live federal question.

Independent Voters of Illinois v. Kusper · filed 1974-01-10

Aside from any question of mootness, which we do not here determine, the bald fact that §§ 6-35 and 6-65 grant plaintiffs the anticipatory relief sought by their amended complaint leaves no justiciable controversy remaining before us and, absent a live federal question, we have no jurisdiction to grant the relief requested.

An association's allegation that threatened conduct will harm its members establishes standing under Section 1331 but does not by itself satisfy the historical $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.

Albany Welfare Rights Organization v. George K. Wyman, Individually and as Commissioner of Social Services for Thestate · filed 1974-03-14

While a complaint by an association alleging that its members will be harmed by threatened conduct suffices to give the association standing under the general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ... that does not determine the $10,000 jurisdictional amount requirement.

Section 1331 presents a justiciable case or controversy when proper adverse parties allege a recurring unconstitutional policy and the dispute can be resolved through judicially ascertainable standards.

Illinois Migrant Council, Etc. v. Alva L. Pilliod, Etc. · filed 1976-08-17

Defendants first assert that the district court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the controversy is non-justiciable. ... On the facts presented to the district court, there is clearly a case or controversy. ... It is also clear that the dispute is capable of being resolved by applying judicially ascertainable standards.

Section 1331 does not support an abstract constitutional dispute that presents no actual controversy of constitutional dimension.

Park Hills Music Club, Inc. v. Board of Education · filed 1981-04-23

For the aforestated reasons, this Court finds that the Complaint presents no controversy of constitutional dimension as is required by Art. Ill § 2 of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201-2202. Therefore, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matters contained in the Complaint and, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3), the Complaint is hereby ordered dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to military regulations, while justiciability remains a separate inquiry.

Dillard v. Brown · filed 1981-06-15

It is not disputed that this court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear Dillard’s claims. Her claims arise under the Constitution of the United States, and jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In deciding whether her claims are justiciable, we must determine whether the separation of powers provided by the Constitution bar our review or whether the claims “presented and the relief sought are of the type which admit of judicial resolution.”

Section 1331 requires a concrete Article III case or controversy and does not authorize an advisory constitutional ruling when no serious possibility of enforcement creates an actual dispute.

Athens Lumber Co. Inc. v. Federal Election Com'n · filed 1982-02-09

There being an absence of such a concrete dispute between these plaintiffs and these defendants, the justiciable case or controversy that must exist for this court to have jurisdiction of this complaint is totally lacking, because of which defendants’ motions to dismiss must be granted. To hold otherwise would put this court in the position of rendering advisory opinions in violation of Article Ill’s “case or controversy” requirement.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over claims that are not yet ripe for federal adjudication.

Bayside Enterprises, Inc. v. Hanson · filed 1987-12-17

The court concludes that ripeness concerns militate against a finding of federal jurisdiction to resolve any claim asserted in this complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a claim against a federal official when the plaintiff’s injury is not fairly traceable to that official and relief against the official would not redress it.

Steele ex rel. Steele v. Magnant · filed 1992-06-10

The court first addresses whether it has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The Secretary reiterates that the plaintiffs have alleged no facts sufficient to warrant a finding that they have suffered any injury fairly traceable to any action the Secretary has or has not taken. And, as the Secretary argues, if nothing is fairly traceable to actions taken by the Secretary, it follows that the third element of the standing doctrine cannot be satisfied, because a ruling against the Secretary would not correct the purported injury. The court is persuaded by this argument.

Under Section 1331’s general federal-question jurisdiction, an organization alleging no injury to itself may establish standing by representing members who suffered injury in fact and could sue in their own right.

No Gwen Alliance of Lane County, Inc. v. Aldridge · filed 1988-03-09

the Court also stated the appropriate standing requirements for cases brought under the general federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331: ... Because No GWEN Alliance has alleged no injury to itself as an organization, it can establish standing in this suit “only as [the] representative[ ] of those of [its] members who have been injured in fact, and thus could have brought suit in their own right.” ... No GWEN Alliance, because of the specific allegations of harm to its members, has standing to bring this action.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a Section 1983 action seeking vindication of constitutional civil rights.

Bennett v. Lopeman · filed 1984-12-04

This is a § 1983 action seeking vindication of civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Hence, federal question subject matter jurisdiction is present.

Section 1331(a) confers jurisdiction over civil-rights claims against a mayor and councilmen acting in their official capacities.

Ammons v. DADE CITY, FLA. · filed 1984-09-21

70. Jurisdiction of plaintiffs’ claims with respect to the individually named defendants — the mayor and councilmen — acting in their official capacities is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), 1343(3) and (4).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alongside Section 1343.

Uzzell v. Friday · filed 1984-08-23

1. This court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343.

Properly pleaded claims under Sections 1983 and 1985(3) support federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331(a).

Klor v. Hannon · filed 1967-12-19(a)

This Court has jurisdiction of the cause pursuant to the provisions of 42 United States Code, Sections 1983 and 1985(3), and 28 United States Code, Sections 1331(a), 1343(1), 1343(3) and 1343(4).

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to enforce rights created by Section 1981.

United States Ex Rel. Washington v. Chester County Police Department · filed 1969-01-09

District Courts have jurisdiction to enforce the rights given by § 1981, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343(4), cf. Jones v. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 88 S.Ct. 2186, 20 L.Ed.2d 1189 (1968), and it is by no means clear that the defendant must be a “person,” unlike a claim arising under § 1983.

Sections 1331(a) and 1343 confer district-court jurisdiction when a prisoner states a claim under the Civil Rights Act.

Sigafus v. Sheriff Herald D. Brown · filed 1969-08-04(a)

If a claim has been stated under that Act, then Sections 1331(a) and 1343 of the Judicial Code (28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a) and 1343) confer jurisdiction on the district court.

Section 1331(a) did not provide jurisdiction over a physician's civil-rights complaint against a private hospital and associated defendants.

Bricker v. Sceva Speare Memorial Hospital · filed 1972-10-25(a)

There is no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) Porter v. Bennison, 180 F.2d 523 (10th Cir. 1950).

Section 1331 supplied no federal question distinct from the plaintiffs' civil-rights claim when the alleged constitutional violations were wholly encompassed by that claim.

Communications Workers of America, Local 10317 v. Methodist Hospital of Kentucky, Inc. · filed 1974-01-07

Jurisdiction is sought under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It is clear that plaintiffs raise no federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 not encompassed by the civil rights claim and this aspect of the case will not further be discussed.

Section 1331, together with Sections 1343 and 1983, supplied jurisdiction to grant limited relief on a constitutional civil-rights claim.

Assaf v. University of Texas System · filed 1975-09-04

Having considered plaintiff’s complaint and defendants’ motion to dismiss, this court concludes that jurisdiction is in fact proper under the above-named sections and is sufficient to grant this court power to confer the limited re...lief sought.

Section 1331 claims are not subject to Section 1983's technical limitations on which entities qualify as persons amenable to suit.

Croy v. Skinner · filed 1976-02-12

Moreover, jurisdiction in the instant action is also predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the technical considerations concerning “persons” amenable to suit under § 1983 are not applicable to lawsuits brought pursuant to § 1331.

A direct Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim invoking Section 1331 is subject to the same state limitations period as factually identical claims under Sections 1983 and 1985.

Gordon v. City of Warren · filed 1976-05-06

Plaintiffs, however, have also incorporated in their complaint a count premised on a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation through the federal question jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... In the context of this complaint, wherein a Fourteenth Amendment “federal question” is juxtaposed with § 1983 and § 1985 actions where all three counts are premised on the same underlying facts, this Court believes it would be inconsistent to apply a statute of limitations for the first count different from that applied to the latter two counts. This is particularly so in this situation wherein the 1983 and 1985 actions derive from the alleged Fourteenth Amendment due process violation. The Court, therefore, will also apply the Michigan three-year statute of limitations to Count I.

Section 1331 is not the proper jurisdictional grant for an action brought under Section 1983 when Section 1343(3) supplies that jurisdiction.

Kelly v. Gilbert · filed 1977-03-17

In the October 4, 1976, order granting the preliminary injunction, it was erroneously stated that jurisdiction was invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Section 1343(3) of Title 28 properly grants district courts jurisdiction in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over claims asserted under the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Milburn v. Girard · filed 1977-11-18

Jurisdiction over claims asserted under the 1866 Act is bestowed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

Section 1331(a) cannot establish jurisdiction for a private action seeking to enforce the Indian Civil Rights Act.

Boe v. Fort Belknap Indian Community of Fort Belknap Reservation · filed 1978-08-21(a)

... forbids the use of 25 U.S.C. § 1302 in conjunction with either 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4) or 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction.

A litigant cannot invoke Section 1331 and an implied constitutional cause of action to evade legislative immunity that bars the same claim under Section 1983.

Colon Berrios v. Agosto · filed 1983-09-07

Under whatever provision the district court might have acted, the question is the same: may one whose cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is barred by an accepted judicial interpretation of that act, avoid that bar by recategorizing the claim? ... The answer is “No.”

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction, without an amount-in-controversy requirement, over Section 1983 actions seeking to enforce federal statutory rights against state defendants.

Koster v. Webb · filed 1983-11-09

Considering first the court’s jurisdiction to entertain this suit, the law is clear that individual citizens may seek to enforce federal statutory rights in federal court against state defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 gives this court jurisdiction over all cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States regardless of the amount in controversy. This includes lawsuits brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1331 makes diversity of citizenship irrelevant to federal jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim.

Jones v. Community Redevelopment Agency Of The City Of Los Angeles · filed 1984-05-15

A section 1983 claim is a federal claim in which diversity is irrelevant for federal court jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331.

Section 1331, together with § 1343, supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over § 1983 actions alleging constitutional violations.

Spell v. McDaniel · filed 1984-07-12

Defendant’s 12(b)(2) motion alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction is also DENIED, as 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343 have long been recognized as the jurisdictional counterparts to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions brought under the Constitution.

Section 1331 gives federal courts federal-question jurisdiction over actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Chang v. University of Rhode Island · filed 1985-04-04

Actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 fall within the court’s federal question jurisdiction as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over claims arising under Section 1983.

Ford v. Lane · filed 1989-01-27

Clearly, we have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain claims arising under section 1983.

Section 1331 provides federal jurisdiction over pleaded federal constitutional and civil-rights claims even when diversity jurisdiction is unavailable.

Katz v. Morgenthau · filed 1989-03-17

Plaintiff has not done this. Jurisdiction is available, however, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over Section 1983 claims that state actors violated federal statutes, subject to the recognized exceptions to such statutory Section 1983 actions.

Wehunt v. Ledbetter · filed 1989-06-27

The next year, however, the Court held in Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. at 8, 100 S.Ct. at 2506, that violations of the Social Security Act could be brought under Sec. 1983 and that the jurisdictional base is 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. Although not discussed in Seagraves, it is clear that subject to the two exceptions to Thiboutot, claims of violations of federal statute by state actors brought under Sec. 1983 are cognizable in federal court.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over Section 1983 claims that state actors violated federal statutes, subject to the recognized exceptions to such statutory Section 1983 actions.

Wehunt v. Ledbetter · filed 1989-06-27

... that violations of the Social Security Act could be brought under § 1983 and that the jurisdictional base is 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... claims of violations of federal statute by state actors brought under § 1983 are cognizable in federal court.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over Title IX gender-discrimination claims.

Pfeiffer v. Marion Center Area School District · filed 1990-10-30

Jurisdiction was proper in the trial court based on Title IX and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The district court had pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over Title IX gender-discrimination claims.

Pfeiffer v. Marion Center Area School District · filed 1990-12-20

Jurisdiction was proper in the trial court based on Title IX and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. The district court had pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges conduct actionable under federal civil rights laws.

Rhodeman v. Robertson and Penn, Inc. · filed 1992-11-13

Additionally, Rhodeman’s complaint alleges conduct actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, § 1983, and Title VII (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2). This court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1332.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a purported § 1983 claim that asserts no recognized federal right or actual deprivation of a federally protected interest.

Pankey v. Webster · filed 1993-03-02

In sum, plaintiffs failure to assert a recognized federal right, or to demonstrate an actual deprivation of a federally protected interest is fatal to the assertion of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the present case. Accordingly, the court finds that this case does not “arise under” federal law and therefore does not fall within this court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts original federal-question jurisdiction over a pleaded private civil RICO claim.

Burnette v. Godshall · filed 1993-07-12

By alleging a private civil RICO, cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b) and (c), Plaintiff has clearly asserted a claim within the original jurisdiction of the district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the entire case has been properly removed to this Court.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction over a purported § 1983 claim when the complaint fails to establish that the defendants acted under color of state law.

Eidson v. Arenas · filed 1994-03-25

Thus, Defendants are private actors and have not acted under “color of state law.” Plaintiff cannot hold Defendants liable under section 1983 since he has failed to establish this indispensable element of a section 1983 action. In the absence of diversity, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Complaint.

Section 1331 provides original federal-question jurisdiction over claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, allowing removal under § 1441(a).

Nielson v. Soltis · filed 1994-10-20

The Defendants in this case filed their Notices of Removal or joined in removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1441 and 1446, and asserted that the district court had original jurisdiction of the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331 and 1343. Because 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(a) specifically provides that a Defendant may remove "any civil action brought in a state court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction," it is clear the Defendants were entitled to remove this case to federal court, as the Plaintiff alleged federal claims under Secs. 1983, 1985 and 1986 of the Civil Rights Act.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over a civil action alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Cofield v. Randolph County Commission · filed 1994-12-30

This court may assert subject matter jurisdiction in the above-styled cause because Plaintiffs allege violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “[t]he district courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under_the laws_ of the United States.”

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint states a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Harris v. McDonald's Corp. · filed 1995-04-03

Plaintiff has stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and in so doing has satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, thereby properly invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a complaint alleging a federal equal protection claim under § 1983 when the claim arises under federal law.

Collins v. Kansas · filed 2001-11-08

The court has subject matter jurisdiction over a section 1983 claim for violations of the plaintiffs equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because the claim arises under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Because the complaint can be read to support a claim over which the court has jurisdiction, the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, even when related state-law claims are pleaded.

Rivera0 v. State Insurance Fund Corp. · filed 2006-01-19

We have original jurisdiction over the 1983 and 1985 claims, of course, which in turn gives us supplemental jurisdiction over the related breach of contract claim.

Section 1331 does not provide subject matter jurisdiction over a § 1983 action that alleges no affirmative act in furtherance of a conspiracy or other act under color of law depriving the plaintiff of rights.

McNaughton v. UDC Homes Inc. · filed 2006-06-20

The district court properly dismissed McNaughton’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because McNaughton does not allege any affirmative acts taken by the UDC in furtherance of a conspiracy, or any other act under color of law that deprived him of his rights.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging civil rights violations based on race, national origin, and gender discrimination even when the lead claim arises under state law.

Kimbrell v. Chaves County Clerk · filed 2014-04-23

But his complaint also alleges that defendants discriminated against him and in favor of the tenant on the basis of race/national origin and gender, violating his civil rights. Such claims arise under federal law, and therefore they were within the district court’s federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over civil-rights claims brought through a state wrongful-death statute incorporated by 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Rodgers v. Lancaster Police & Fire Dept, et a · filed 2016-04-07

Federal civil- rights laws extend federal-question jurisdiction, however, by incorporating state wrongful-death statutes.

Section 1331 places viable federal civil rights claims within district courts’ federal-question jurisdiction.

Bush v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2019-03-13

However, Bush’s civil rights claims would, if viable, be within the District Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over pleaded § 1983 constitutional claims; whether those claims state a basis for relief is addressed on a motion to dismiss.

Aldridge v. Hoskin · filed 2019-11-04

Thus, this Court has original jurisdiction over Aldridge’s § 1983 claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The issue Aldridge attempts to raise in his Motion for Reconsideration of whether he states a claim upon which relief can be granted is appropriate for consideration in a motion to dismiss.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over § 1983 claims alleging violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

(PC) Daniels v. Baer · filed 2020-07-08

Plaintiff has, by his allegations, brought § 1983 claims arising under federal law. This Court has federal-question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims which arise out of the same factual allegations as his federal claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a New Jersey Civil Rights Act claim merely because it seeks to vindicate federal constitutional rights.

SMITH v. SMITH · filed 2020-07-22

Although Plaintiff’s NJRCRA claim seeks to vindicate her rights under the federal Constitution, it does not confer federal-question jurisdiction upon this Court.

Section 1331 may provide federal-question jurisdiction over a sufficiently pleaded § 1983 claim that a private person conspired with state judicial officials.

TRINH v. TRINH · filed 2022-02-17

Allegations of this nature could fall within this Court’s “federal question” jurisdiction because private individuals can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for corruptly conspiring with judicial officials to secure a judgment in state court.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over prisoner civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Eaves v. Jennings · filed 2022-08-03

Judge Jennings clearly had jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s prisoner 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (‘The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”).

Section 1331 permits a federal prisoner to bring Eighth Amendment claims for injunctive relief concerning confinement conditions and medical care in a separate civil rights action.

CIPOLLA v. WARDEN · filed 2023-12-15

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement and inadequate medical care claims for injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, alleged in his “Motion as to the Denial of C.A.R.E.S. Act by the Bureau of Prisons at Fort Dix” (Dkt. No. 2), may be brought as a complaint in a separate civil rights action.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over prisoner civil rights actions brought under § 1983 because they arise under federal law.

(PC) Wilson v. Castro · filed 2024-08-07

For subject matter jurisdiction, prisoner civil rights cases brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “aris[e] under federal law” and thus fall within this Court’s jurisdiction over matters involving a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, based on the pleadings, the Eastern District of California has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists for a pre-enforcement First Amendment challenge when credible threats to enforce a broad criminal statute deter protected expression.

Straut v. Calissi · filed 1968-12-18

These decisions have rested on the consideration that the mere threat of prosecution under a statute alleged to be overly broad in the First Amendment area can effect a deterrent to the exercise of protected expression sufficient to justify the intervention of the federal courts. Where, as here, suit is brought by plaintiffs whose activities apparently fall within the statute’s broad prohibitions, federal jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction over a pre-enforcement Fourteenth Amendment and Section 1983 challenge to state professional-licensing rules.

Wall v. American Optometric Association, Inc. · filed 1974-10-21(a)

Plaintiffs assert that the defendants threaten to violate their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs in No. 16414 assert jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343; plaintiff in No. 18680 asserts jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4), and under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). Plaintiff in No. 18680 also seeks a remedy under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. The court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear all the claims presented.

Section 1331 supported jurisdiction over a pre-enforcement First Amendment challenge to arrests and restrictions on religious solicitation at a public airport.

INTERNATIONAL SOC., KRISHNA v. Dallas-Ft. W. Reg. Air. B. · filed 1975-03-21

This Court's jurisdiction is claimed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 as well as §§ 2201 and 2202. I find that the Court has jurisdiction to proceed.

Section 1331 supported jurisdiction over a pre-enforcement First Amendment challenge to arrests and restrictions on religious solicitation at a public airport.

International Society for Krishna Consciousness School v. Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport Board · filed 1975-03-21

This Court’s jurisdiction is claimed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 as well as §§ 2201 and 2202. I find that the Court has jurisdiction to proceed.

Section 1331 supports a pre-enforcement First Amendment challenge to a state law, and general abstention is unwarranted absent special circumstances.

Spokane Arcades, Inc. v. Eikenberry · filed 1982-07-02

Jurisdiction is founded on the Federal Question Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It should be noted at the outset that defendants’ arguments in favor of general abstention are rejected. Where a claim is predicated upon alleged abridgement of First Amendment rights, a federal court should abstain only in the face of special circumstances.

Section 1331 permits a pre-enforcement suit asserting an unconditional constitutional right against a state statute, and the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses create rights enforceable through federal equitable proceedings.

Illinois v. General Electric Co. · filed 1982-07-13

But in the present case the companies are claiming an unconditional right under the Constitution to ship spent nuclear fuel into, and to receive it in, Illinois for storage notwithstanding the Spent Fuel Act. They can vindicate that right in a suit under section 1331. The commerce and supremacy clauses of the Constitution create rights enforceable in equity proceedings in federal court.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a sufficiently immediate constitutional controversy alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Jaffree by and Through Jaffree v. James · filed 1982-08-09

Plaintiffs’ allege that defendants have violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and the first and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims of the plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343(3). There is a substantial controversy between these parties having adverse legal interests of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant a determination whether preliminary injunctive relief should issue.

A federal constitutional cause of action invoking § 1331 is not merely discretionary declaratory jurisdiction, and a different pending state case does not itself justify abstention.

Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass'n-MEA-NEA · filed 1982-08-11

Furthermore, the plaintiffs in the present case have not merely invoked this court’s “discretionary” jurisdiction, but have invoked this court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 by alleging a cause of action under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. ... Consequently, I find abstaining in the present case due to the pendency of a case in Michigan courts to be improper.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to consider a constitutional challenge to a federal statute.

SCA Services of Indiana, Inc. v. Thomas · filed 1986-05-09

However, SCA is challenging the constitutional sufficiency of CERCLA itself. This court clearly has jurisdiction to consider a constitutional challenge to a federal statute under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supports district-court jurisdiction over a declaratory action challenging a state statute under the federal Constitution.

Brown-Forman Corp. v. South Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission · filed 1986-09-08

Jurisdiction of this court is premised on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2201. These sections confer jurisdiction upon the district court to render declaratory judgments in controversies arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 mandates jurisdiction over a direct federal constitutional challenge to a state statute, and abstention is not justified merely because the issue implicates a coherent state policy when no state proceeding has begun.

Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association of Rhode Island v. Mark A. Pfeiffer, Etc. · filed 1987-11-02

Simply, the district court was presented with a direct challenge to the legality of a state statute under the Constitution of the United States. As such, it is a “civil action ... arising under the Constitution” and district court jurisdiction is mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Jurisdiction cannot be avoided simply because the issue concerns a coherent state policy.

Section 1331 requires a federal court to retain a federal constitutional challenge to an unambiguous Puerto Rico statute when no unresolved local-law question warrants abstention.

Corporacion Insular De Seguros v. Garcia · filed 1988-02-24

we are nonetheless convinced that to retain jurisdiction over the present case is not only a result wholly consistent with the ... of these cases but is one mandated by the United States Congress through 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In other words, the case at bar, though it involves issues of great importance to Puerto Rico, is ruled, as presented, by the United States Constitution. Thus, Puerto Rico is not sovereign over the matter and consequently abstention, in the context detailed above, is out of place.

Section 1331 permits a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging a state statute as unconstitutional when the plaintiff is not seeking appellate review of a state administrative decision.

Slifer v. Public Employee Relations Board · filed 1990-05-04

Plaintiffs are not seeking review of a state administrative decision in this case. Rather, they are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based upon the unconstitutionality of a state statute. Such a challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is proper.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a preprosecution constitutional challenge to a state ethics law when commission action creates an actual controversy, even before an indictment.

Hunt v. Anderson · filed 1991-10-30

Since this action involves a federal question, the plaintiff asserts that jurisdiction of the federal court exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... As noted previously, an actual justiciable controversy is established in this case by the action taken by the State Ethics Commission. Accordingly, there is jurisdiction to entertain this action and defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of a federal question and a justiciable controversy is due to be DENIED.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over facial constitutional challenges to federal statutes governing the FCC, despite the limits on district court review of FCC matters.

Action for Childrens Television v. Federal Communication Commission · filed 1993-05-18

More importantly, the District Court retains jurisdiction over facial challenges to the constitutionality of a statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, even if that statute relates to an FCC matter.

Section 1331 permits a Medicaid provider to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to a Medicaid regulation because the Medicaid Act has no comparable bar to federal-question review.

Illinois Council on Long Term Care Inc. v. Shalala · filed 1998-05-08

The Medicaid Act contains nothing comparable to § 405(h) or § 1395Ü. The general federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 therefore supplies the avenue of judicial review, and it has been understood for a long time that courts are not to invent novel obstacles to the use of this jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a nonprovider’s constitutional challenge to Medicare regulation when the Medicare Act provides no procedure for reviewing that claim.

Unihealth Services Corp. v. Califano · filed 1978-03-21

Second, this Court also concludes that Uni-health has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to have the constitutional challenges to the Medicare Act reviewed by this Court.

Section 1331's jurisdictional amount was not met by annual rent differences below $10,000, and unidentified class members each had to satisfy the amount requirement individually.

Winningham v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development · filed 1974-02-19

Further, the $10,000 jurisdictional requirement would appear to be lacking for a § 1331 action arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The difference between the rent, with and without the supplement, is $1104.00 annually. ... The existence of the class feature of the litigation does not change things. Damage sustained by unidentified members of the class must meet in each individual instance the jurisdictional requirements.

Under Section 1331's former monetary threshold, the claims of federal employees as a class could not be aggregated to reach the jurisdictional amount.

Local 1497, National Federation of Federal Employees v. City & County of Denver · filed 1969-07-11

Moreover, the claims of Federal employees also as a class may not be aggregated.

Section 1331 jurisdiction may exist for class claims involving nontrivial, important federal rights despite the historical bar on aggregating trivial claims.

Bass v. Richardson · filed 1971-11-19

There are multiple bases of federal jurisdiction. We share Judge Tenney's view that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 jurisdiction exists as to the class plaintiffs. ... This case is not trivial and it is not a diversity case.

Under § 1331's historical amount requirement, individual class members without a proven interest exceeding $10,000 could not support jurisdiction absent class certification, but an organizational plaintiff with more than $10,000 at stake could.

North City Area-Wide Council, Inc. v. George W. Romney, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Department of Housing · filed 1972-12-04

No class action determination has been made to this date, and the proofs presented in the district court show no interest of the individual plaintiffs which would meet the jurisdictional amount requirement of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. ... NCAWC, however, has established an interest in excess of $10,000.00, since federal funds for its operations far in excess of that amount are at stake. Thus, in the absence of any class action determination, we may treat the appeal as involving NCAWC.

Separate low-income tenants' claims cannot be aggregated to meet Section 1331's former amount requirement when no tenant has a claim exceeding $10,000.

People's Rights Organization v. Bethlehem Associates · filed 1973-03-23

Thus, since no one claim reaches the minimum jurisdictional amount, jurisdiction in this action cannot rest upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Under former Section 1331(a), separate individual claims may not be aggregated to meet the $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.

National Treasury Employees Union v. Richard M. Nixon, Individually and as President of the United States · filed 1974-01-25(a)

However, in oral argument in this Court, counsel for NTEU admitted that Section 1331(a) jurisdiction is lacking because no individual plaintiff has a claim which exceeds $10,000. ... for purposes of meeting the $10,000 requirement, Section 1331(a) jurisdiction is lacking herein.

For Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement, nonaggregable homeowner claims were sufficient when each loan's promissory note exceeded $10,000.

Roberts v. Cameron Brown Co. · filed 1975-07-29

However, in every instance the promissory note evidencing the loan upon which the mortgage or security deed is based is well in excess of $10,000, thus satisfying the jurisdictional requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.