28 U.S.C. § 1331

Former § 1331 jurisdiction is unavailable when no class member's individual claim reaches the $10,000 amount requirement.

Muzquiz v. City of San Antonio · filed 1975-10-08

The plaintiffs also asserted jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Stipulations of the parties make it clear, however, that no class member’s claim amounts to the $10,000 needed under § 1331.

Under Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement, individual claims that do not exceed $10,000 cannot be aggregated, so the statute confers no jurisdiction over any defendant.

Shouse v. Pierce County · filed 1975-11-06

Plaintiffs plead 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in support of this court’s jurisdiction. No individual plaintiff has shown that he has a claim in excess of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and claims of this type may not be aggregated to reach the jurisdictional amount. ... Accordingly, Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction as to any defendant.

Section 1331's then-applicable minimum amount could not be satisfied by aggregating the claims of a purported class, so federal jurisdiction was absent when no alternative jurisdictional statute applied.

Henry J. Enders, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. American Patent Search Company · filed 1976-05-03(a)

Since Enders does not claim damages in excess of the minimum amount specified in section 1331 and since the claims of the members of the purported class cannot be aggregated, ... there is no federal jurisdiction. Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing Enders’ suit.

When Section 1331's former amount allegation is controverted, each class plaintiff must establish the threshold by competent proof unless aggregation is proper; a bare allegation does not carry that burden.

Ass'n v. Ipswich Board of Education · filed 1978-01-30

However, plaintiff has made no allegation or showing that all plaintiffs met the jurisdictional requirement or that this is a proper case for aggregation of claims. ... Since plaintiff’s mere allegation of requisite jurisdictional amount is not dispositive of the issue, ... plaintiff has failed to carry its burden. Therefore, this court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1331.

Under Section 1331(a)'s former amount-in-controversy requirement, the amount is calculated from the plaintiff's standpoint and the separate claims of proposed class members may not be aggregated to reach $10,000.

Podrazik v. Blum · filed 1979-09-14(a)

The amount in controversy is calculated from the plaintiff’s standpoint. ... The claims of the purported class members may not be aggregated to satisfy the $10,000 requirement.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based solely on federal claims asserted for prospective unnamed class members when no named plaintiff has standing to raise those claims.

Biscone v. Jetblue Airways Corporation · filed 2010-02-04

The Montreal Convention claims, which form the basis for JetBlue’s removal of the case to this Court, are alleged only on behalf of prospective unnamed members of the proposed class. ... There are currently no plaintiffs with standing to raise the Montreal Convention claims. Without the federal claims, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the motion to remand must be granted.

Section 1331 does not turn a grant of supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims into original federal-question jurisdiction.

State of Hawaii v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2006-10-30

Even the supplemental jurisdiction statute itself, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, would grant original jurisdiction under Dey’s construction of § 1331. This is obviously incorrect, and Dey did not pursue this argument at the hearing.

A state-law claim does not arise under § 1331 merely because federal law supplies one possible negligence criterion when liability can be established without resolving the federal issue.

Larry James Christopher Thompson v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · filed 1985-07-15

Because the jury could find negligence on the part of Merrell Dow without finding a violation of the FDCA, the plaintiffs’ causes of action did not depend necessarily upon a question of federal law. Consequently, the causes of action did not arise under federal law and, therefore, were improperly removed to federal court.

Once a complaint presents a substantial federal question under Section 1331, the district court may decide the entire controversy, including related state-law questions.

Southeast Winston Rural Water Ass'n v. City of Louisville · filed 1969-06-30

Once it is established that there is a substantial question of federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, then the federal court will determine the entire controversy, for the jurisdiction of the Court is based on “cases” rather than on “questions”. For a court of original jurisdiction cannot function unless it has power to decide all questions which a case may present.

A court with Section 1331 jurisdiction over the principal action may exercise ancillary jurisdiction over a later claim affecting property or a fund controlled through that action.

Ice Projects, Inc. v. World Hockey Ass'n · filed 1977-05-05

Ancillary jurisdiction is particularly proper here where this Court clearly had jurisdiction over the original action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in the case wherein the escrow fund was created; where the defendants, in signing the Consent Decree, agreed ... to certain procedures, and where plaintiffs’ attachment could have rendered the Court approved consent decree unenforceable. ... Therefore, this Court does have jurisdiction over the subject matter in this litigation.

When the main action rests on Section 1331, state-law compulsory counterclaims require no independent jurisdictional basis, but permissive counterclaims do.

Four Seasons Solar Products Corp. v. Sun System Prefabricated Solar Greenhouses, Inc. · filed 1983-03-19

Subject matter jurisdiction over the main action is predicated on federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Ancillary jurisdiction supplies a basis for jurisdiction over those state law counterclaims which are compulsory under Rule 13(a). ... However, as to the counterclaims which are permissive under Rule 13(b), an independent jurisdictional basis is required.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is unavailable after dismissal of the federal statutory claims, although an independent diversity basis may permit adjudication of remaining state claims.

Vorrius v. Harvey · filed 1983-08-30

Dismissal of the federal securities statutes destroys this Court’s federal question jurisdiction but diversity jurisdiction over the parties is retained: Vorrius is a New Jersey resident and Harvey is a New York resident. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

Section 1331 requires an independently grounded federal claim; merely pleading a pendent state-law theory cannot create federal-question jurisdiction.

Laborers Local 938 Joint Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. B.R. Starnes Co. of Florida · filed 1986-01-22

Here, Plaintiffs endeavor to create a question of federal law from the bald pleading of a pendent state claim. Plaintiffs’ circular reasoning masks the necessary analysis of a federal question which must be undertaken independent of its state claims. This examination, of course, is a prerequisite to the exercise of pendent jurisdiction, since the federal claim must be independently grounded to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Court.

When the federal statutory claims supporting Section 1331 jurisdiction are eliminated before trial, remaining local-law and common-law claims rest only on pendent jurisdiction, which the court may decline to exercise.

Barlow v. McLeod · filed 1986-12-02

First, this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims now that the federal statutory counts (i.e., the RICO counts) have been eliminated. The complaint provided for jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and pursuant to pendent jurisdiction. The D.C. Consumer Protection Act and common law claims are therefore before this court only on the limited basis of the pendent jurisdiction doctrine.

When federal claims supporting Section 1331 jurisdiction are properly dismissed before trial, a district court may no longer exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Minker v. Baltimore Annual Conference of United Methodist Church and Bishop Joseph A. Yeakel · filed 1990-01-19

Our holding raises a new jurisdictional issue on remand. Initially, federal jurisdiction over appellant’s state law claims was proper under the district court’s pendent federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or jurisdiction under federal civil rights statutes, 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Having properly dismissed appellant’s federal age discrimination claims before trial, the district court may no longer assert pendent jurisdiction over appellant’s state contract claims.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a Title VII claim permits pendent jurisdiction over a parallel state-law contract claim arising from the same nucleus of operative fact.

Brown v. Trustees of Boston University · filed 1990-01-24

The district court plainly had federal question jurisdiction over Brown's Title VII claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982). ... In this case, the state claim alleging violation of the anti-discrimination clause of the contract exactly paralleled the federal Title VII claim. It lay within the district court's discretion, therefore, to exercise pendent jurisdiction over Brown's contract claim.

State-law third-party claims do not independently support federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331.

United States v. a & N Cleaners & Launderers, Inc. · filed 1990-09-20

In the present case, since all of the Banks’s third-party claims are based on state law, there is no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

After all federal claims are dismissed before trial, Section 1331 provides no remaining basis for federal-question jurisdiction over unpreempted state-law claims.

Fox v. Parker Hannifin Corporation · filed 1990-09-20

In this case, however, the district court properly dismissed all of the plaintiffs' federal claims as time-barred, thus eliminating any possible basis for federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. As the Supreme Court has explained, "if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, ... the state claims should be dismissed as well."

State-law tort claims do not arise under Section 1331 merely because federal regulations may help establish a state-law duty.

Grimes v. Placid Refining Co. · filed 1990-11-19

Defendants also claim that jurisdiction is proper in this Court based on the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provide for jurisdiction in federal court over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... The defendants may be liable under state law even if they did not violate the federal regulations.

Once all federal claims are dismissed, Section 1331 no longer supplies the jurisdictional basis for retaining pendent state-law claims.

Reeves Ex Rel. Jones v. Besonen · filed 1991-01-15

The Court thus concludes that, even taking the facts in this case in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, he has no claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court need not decide whether the facts in this case state a claim under state law, since the dismissal of the federal claims removes the underlying basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Instead, the Court will dismiss the pendant state law claims without prejudice so that they may be brought in the appropriate state court.

After the sole federal question supporting Section 1331 jurisdiction is resolved, a district court may dismiss the remaining state-law claims without prejudice for lack of a continuing federal jurisdictional basis.

Glenside West Corp. v. Exxon Co., USA · filed 1991-04-08

Exxon alleges federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1337. ... because the sole question of federal law in the Amended Complaint and the Verified Supplemental Counterclaims, ... the lawfulness of the termination under the PMPA, is resolved, no question of federal law remains in this action. The remaining claims of Glenside and Exxon are therefore dismissed in their entirety without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim supported by an independent state-law theory, even if federal law supplies another theory.

Elliot v. LTD Direct Marketing, Inc. · filed 1997-03-18

For these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs did not assert a federal cause of action and that neither of their state causes of action should be recharacterized as a federal claim. In addition, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ attempt to support their action by a federal theory is immaterial inasmuch as their claim is also supported by an independent state theory.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims that raise no federal issue.

Lauro v. Tomkats, Inc. · filed 1998-06-18

The counterclaims are based on state law causes of action and thus do not raise federal issues. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over counterclaims brought exclusively under state law that do not implicate federal law.

Directv v. Edwards · filed 2003-11-17

This Court now must determine whether it has jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims asserted in Defendant’s counterclaim, which are brought exclusively under Indiana state law, and do not implicate any federal laws. In this regard, if the Court has original jurisdiction over the counterclaims at all, it is through diversity or supplemental jurisdiction. ... Having already ruled out federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court must determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, meaning that the parties must have complete diversity of citizenship, and the amount in controversy asserted by Defendant exceeds $75,000.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based solely on a violation of state law.

Epic Educational Projects & Information Consultant Center Inc. v. Dwelling House Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 2005-07-13

Even were we to agree with EPIC that this omission constituted a violation of state law (an issue which we need not decide here), such a violation does not confer subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a dispute turns entirely on state law, even if a federal statute incorporates the relevant state law.

Bay Shore Union Free School District v. Kain · filed 2007-05-10

However, assuming that IDEA incorporates the relevant New York Education Law, this does not provide an independent federal question that would sustain the court's jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over counterclaims that arise only under state law.

Dotson v. Ally Financial, Inc. · filed 2019-11-07

Ally’s counterclaims do not fall within the Court’s original jurisdiction. They do not arise under federal law and do not satisfy the requirements of diversity. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over a California state law breach of contract counterclaim.

Raya v. Calbiotech · filed 2020-05-12

The Court does not have federal question or diversity jurisdiction over the Counterclaim.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over counterclaims that arise only under state law.

Zap Cellular, Inc. v. Weintraub · filed 2020-09-30

The Court first observes that it does not have original subject matter jurisdiction over the SAA’s seventeen counterclaims and third-party claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), or 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction). These claims unquestionably arise under state law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over questions asking a federal court to interpret a state constitution, state statutes, or state court rules.

Benshoof v. Admon · filed 2023-10-31

But none of these questions are federal questions within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17 ask the Court to interpret the Washington Constitution and Washington state statutes or court rules.

Section 1331 permits an equitable action against individual federal officers to restrain conduct that exceeds their authority, though the federal agencies themselves are dismissed.

Ajay Nutrition Foods, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration · filed 1974-04-05

Because of this much invoked doctrine the Court will grant defendant’s motion to dismiss in respect to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the FDA, but the Court holds it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in the action against the individual defendants for equitable relief.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims but does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity.

C.H. v. Sullivan · filed 1989-07-25

Section 1331, federal ... question jurisdiction, is not a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity, so a plaintiff seeking judgment against the government must identify a specific statutory waiver.

Wilson v. United States · filed 1989-07-31

However, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is of no help to the plaintiffs. General federal question jurisdiction does not waive sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 is a general jurisdictional statute and does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity; a claimant against the government must identify an explicit waiver.

No. 90-2113 · filed 1990-11-20

Sovereign immunity is not waived by general jurisdictional statutes such as 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1340 (jurisdiction over actions arising under the Internal Revenue Code), and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1361 (action to compel a government officer to perform his duty). ... Rather, the taxpayer must find an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity.

A district court may combine Section 1331’s jurisdictional grant with a separate statutory waiver of sovereign immunity to hear a federal-agency contract claim.

Young v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. · filed 1991-05-08

A district court does have jurisdiction, however, if there is a specific grant of alternative jurisdiction and a separate waiver of sovereign immunity. ... Here, specific grants of alternative jurisdiction are found at 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 12 U.S.C. § 1441a(Z )(1).

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, subject to the United States’ sovereign immunity unless that immunity is waived.

Alkatabi v. United States Department of Justice Immigration & Naturalization Service · filed 1991-10-30

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, United States district courts have jurisdiction to hear “all civil actions arising under the Constitution.” That rule is limited by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, however, which protects the United States from liability unless consent to sue is given.

Section 1331 does not waive federal sovereign immunity; federal-question jurisdiction over a suit against the United States requires its consent to be sued.

Paul J. And Linda G. Berridge v. United States · filed 1991-12-16

The Berridges's direct our attention to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as the source of jurisdiction. This argument is misplaced. Unlike state courts, federal courts enjoy only limited jurisdiction. The federal question statute authorizes jurisdiction over all civil actions for which the government has consented to be sued. A broader construction of section 1331 would eviscerate the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity, so invoking it alone cannot establish jurisdiction over a suit against the government.

Hughes v. United States · filed 1992-01-09

The Hugheses also assert that the district court had jurisdiction pursuant to general jurisdiction statutes such as 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1340. These general jurisdictional statutes cannot, however, waive the government's sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over federal claims but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Nassar v. United States · filed 1992-05-12

However, section 1331 does not waive sovereign immunity; it merely gives the district courts jurisdiction to hear federal claims that are not otherwise barred.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Industrial Highway Corp. v. Danielson · filed 1992-07-06

Section 1331, the federal question statute, does not in itself abrogate the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity for a serviceman’s tort claim arising from activity incident to military service.

In Re Joint Eastern & Southern Districts Asbestos Litigation · filed 1992-07-28

The Jones Act, general maritime law, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provide no further waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity.

Fetter v. United States · filed 1992-08-20

Mr. Fetter also argues that 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which grants original jurisdiction of civil actions to district courts, provides sufficient jurisdiction for his case to be heard. However, "this statute neither waives the federal government's sovereign immunity to suit nor indicates the appropriate forum for adjudication of the controversy." Kester v. Campbell, 652 F.2d 13, 15 (9th Cir.1981); accord Holloman v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir.1983). Again, sovereign immunity forestalls Mr. Fetter's case.

Section 1331 confers general federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Fostvedt v. United States · filed 1992-11-03

Petitioner asserts that the court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 1340 (jurisdiction over actions arising under the Internal Revenue Code), and 1361 (jurisdiction of actions in the nature of mandamus). Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1444 (10th Cir.1990). These are statutes conferring general jurisdiction and "[s]overeign immunity is not waived by general jurisdictional statutes." Id.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a claim against the United States when sovereign immunity does not bar the claim.

Cox v. United States · filed 1992-12-04

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all cases arising under the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1986). A case cannot arise, however, under federal law, if the United States is immune from suit under that law. ... For the foregoing reasons, this Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction because the immunity provisions of 33 U.S.C. § 702c is inapplicable to this ease and the United States’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is hereby DENIED.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity, so federal-question jurisdiction alone cannot support a suit against the United States.

Hoang Ngoc Can v. United States · filed 1993-04-30

However, section 1331 does not effect a general waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity or create a right to money damages against it.

Dico, Inc. v. Diamond · filed 1993-05-17

Although section 1331 grants jurisdiction to the district courts for matters raising federal questions, it does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity and does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity or supply jurisdiction over a claim when jurisdiction is otherwise absent.

Getrost v. U.S. Through I.R.S. · filed 1993-05-21

General jurisdiction statutes such as 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1340 neither confer jurisdiction on the courts where they would not otherwise have it, nor waive sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Bay Savings Bank v. Internal Revenue Service · filed 1993-08-24

The same is true of section 1331, which grants district courts “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... These sections alone, therefore, do not permit a finding that the government has waived sovereign immunity in this case, and do not support the exercise by this Court of subject matter jurisdiction of plaintiffs claims against the IRS.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity; a claim against the United States requires a separate waiver.

Ferrel v. Brown · filed 1993-10-19

Sections 1340 and 1331, however, merely operate as grants of general jurisdiction and require an accompanying waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States or its agencies.

Whittle v. United States · filed 1993-10-25

Whittle relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general jurisdictional statute for federal questions. ... The federal question jurisdictional statute is not a general waiver of sovereign immunity; it merely establishes a subject matter that is within the competence of federal courts to entertain.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to hear challenges to federal agency action that fall within 5 U.S.C. § 702’s waiver of sovereign immunity.

Black Hills Institute of Geological Research v. South Dakota School of Mines & Technology · filed 1993-12-15

District courts have jurisdiction under § 1331 to hear cases falling within § 702’s consent to suit.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Delgado v. Detention Center, Phil, PA. · filed 1993-12-30

Sovereign immunity bars lawsuits against the United States unless Congress has specifically waived that immunity. ... Neither the Constitution nor 28 U.S.C. § 1331 acts as such a waiver.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over suits for nonmonetary relief challenging agency action within 5 U.S.C. § 702’s waiver of sovereign immunity.

Black Hills Institute of Geological Research v. South Dakota School of Mines & Technology · filed 1994-02-02

District courts have jurisdiction under Sec. 1331 to hear cases falling within Sec. 702's consent to suit.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Simmons v. Revenue Officers, Steve Daniels, Keith Farrar, & Cory Armstrong, 1117 · filed 1994-02-11

In plaintiffs objections, jurisdiction is claimed to be proper under the following statutes: 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1340, 1361, 1391(e), 2410(a) and 2463; 42 U.S.C. § 1983. None of these statutes waive the sovereign immunity of the government and therefore plaintiffs claim should be dismissed for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not by itself waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.

Cook v. Secretary of the Air Force · filed 1994-04-22

Cook contends that the Tucker Act has no application here because jurisdiction is based on federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, it is well established that 28 U.S.C. § 1331, by itself, does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.

Section 1331 does not waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity; asserting federal-question jurisdiction alone cannot establish jurisdiction over an unconsented suit against it.

Chow v. Giordano · filed 1994-05-16

Finally, the Chows assert jurisdiction under general jurisdictional statutes, namely, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331 and 1343. "A mere assertion that general jurisdictional statutes apply does not suffice to confer jurisdiction when, as in this case, the government did not waive its immunity." Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 539 n. 5 (9th Cir.1992).

Section 1331 does not waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity.

Town of Sherburne v. Espy · filed 1994-05-18

However, neither 28 U.S.C. § 1331 nor the Weeks Act waive the federal defendants’ sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 provides general federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Shanbaum v. United States · filed 1994-09-15

Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is a general jurisdiction statute and does not provide a general waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Helfgott v. United States · filed 1994-09-29

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331, cited by the plaintiff as a basis for jurisdiction, confers jurisdiction on United States district courts for actions involving federal questions, civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. It does not, in itself, provide a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Kanemoto v. Reno · filed 1994-12-05

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 does not by itself operate as a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants federal question jurisdiction but does not itself waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Kanemoto v. Reno · filed 1994-12-05

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not by itself operate as a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive federal sovereign immunity for monetary claims against the government.

Royer v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · filed 1990-02-15

Plaintiff relies upon two statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 (1982), as the jurisdictional basis for his claims. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under either to decide plaintiffs monetary claims because neither constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over agency actions, but a claim against the United States also requires a separate waiver of sovereign immunity.

Robishaw Engineering, Inc. v. United States · filed 1995-06-27

The third statute cited in Robishaw’s complaint is the federal question provision, which provides original jurisdiction to district courts over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This provision generally confers jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency actions and decisions. ... Yet, the presence of a federal question does not, without more, establish jurisdiction here. Because Robishaw’s claim is against the United States, the obstacle of sovereign immunity must also be overcome.

Section 1331 does not waive federal sovereign immunity.

Forbes v. Reno · filed 1995-06-27

Although Forbes contends that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, that section is not a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself waive sovereign immunity for money claims against the United States.

Taydus v. Cisneros · filed 1995-07-06

Section 1331’s general grant of federal question jurisdiction, however, “does not by its own terms waive sovereign immunity and vest in district courts plenary jurisdiction” over claims for money judgments against the United States.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity from constitutional tort claims.

Wright v. United States · filed 1995-11-03

Nor does the federal question statute waive sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States or its agencies.

McMillan v. Department of the Interior · filed 1995-11-07

McMillan first asserts jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which confers upon the federal district courts original jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This section does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States or its agencies.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction but does not remove the barrier of federal sovereign immunity.

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska v. Babbitt · filed 1996-01-17

The existence of federal question jurisdiction does not remove the barrier of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive federal sovereign immunity for a suit challenging an administrative tax levy.

Granse v. United States · filed 1996-06-03

Sections 1331, 1340, and 1361 of Title 28 do not waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity for suit challenging an administrative tax levy.

Section 1331 does not expressly waive the federal government's sovereign immunity.

McMillan v. United States Department of the Interior Bruce Babbitt Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas Metropoli · filed 1996-06-14

McMillan asserts jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2410, 15 U.S.C. § 1-2 and 14-16, and 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (RICO). None of these statutes expressly waives the federal government's sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Paul v. Army & Air Force Exchange Service · filed 1996-08-05

Here, the statutes identified by Paul do not provide a waiver of sovereign immunity. See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1382-83 (9th Cir.1988) (28 U.S.C. § 2201), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1006 (1989); Holloman v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir.1983) (28 U.S.C. § 1331), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 958 (1984); Smith v. Grimm, 534 F.2d 1346, 1352 n. 9 (9th Cir.) (28 U.S.C. § 1361), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 980 (1976).

Section 1331 grants general federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. United States · filed 1996-09-19

General federal question jurisdiction, standing alone, does not permit the plaintiff to proceed against the United States in this forum, because 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331 is not a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not by itself waive sovereign immunity.

Swan v. Clinton · filed 1996-11-22

Neither the general federal question statute nor the mandamus statute by itself waives sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive sovereign immunity in contract actions against the federal government or its agencies.

Research Triangle Institute v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System · filed 1997-02-14

Plaintiff contends that federal question jurisdiction is proper in this court based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 12 U.S.C. § 632. However, neither of 'these provisions unequivocally waives sovereign immunity in contract actions against the federal government and its agencies.

Section 1331 does not waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity.

Crisp v. United States · filed 1997-02-25

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1340 do not waive the government’s sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Amoco Oil Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · filed 1997-03-28

Sovereign immunity protects the United States from suit unless it consents to be sued, and section 1331 does not constitute a waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not itself waive federal sovereign immunity; a plaintiff suing the United States or one of its instrumentalities must identify a specific statutory waiver.

Clinton County Commissioners Arrest the Incinerator Remediation, Inc. ("a.i.r., Inc.") v. United States Environmental Pr · filed 1997-06-26

Moreover, when the plaintiff seeks to sue the United States or an instrumentality thereof, he may not rely on the general federal question jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C.§ 1331, but must identify a specific statutory provision that waives the government’s sovereign immunity from suit.

Section 1331 does not waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity; a plaintiff suing the United States or one of its instrumentalities must identify a specific statutory waiver.

Leuthe v. OFFICE OF FINANCIAL INST. ADJUDICATION · filed 1997-09-08

Moreover, when a plaintiff seeks to sue the United States or any instrumentality thereof, he may not rely on the general federal question jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but must identify a specific statutory provision that waives the government's sovereign immunity from suit.

Section 1331 does not waive federal sovereign immunity or grant district courts general jurisdiction over suits against the United States.

Mitchell v. USA · filed 1997-10-20

In addition, “§ 1331 does not by its own terms waive sovereign immunity and vest in district courts plenary jurisdiction over . . . suits against the United States.”

Section 1331 does not itself waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Austral Oil Co., Inc. v. National Park Service · filed 1997-10-23

As Plaintiffs concede, neither the statute defining federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, operate in and of themselves to waive sovereign immunity or to confer jurisdiction on the federal court.

Section 1331 confers subject matter jurisdiction but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Bernstein v. United States · filed 1997-11-10

General jurisdictional statutes, such as 28 U.S.C. § 1331, merely confer jurisdiction to hear the subject matter of a case without waiving sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants subject matter jurisdiction but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

O'Brien v. United States · filed 1998-02-13

While 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332 confer subject matter jurisdiction over the defined actions, they are not in themselves waivers of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

LaFargue v. United States · filed 1998-04-08

Moreover, neither the EPCA, nor § 1331 waives the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Desiderio v. National Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc. · filed 1998-04-22

As neither 28 U.S.C. ... § 1331 nor 28 U.S.C. § 1332 constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity, ... plaintiff only can obtain judicial review of SEC rules or of the SEC’s approval of the rules of a self-regulatory organization such as the NASD under the APA.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself waive sovereign immunity for monetary claims against the United States.

Las Brisas, S.E. v. Department of Agriculture Farmer's Home Administration · filed 1998-05-28

The first provision, § 1331 is merely a jurisdictional statute which is not in itself a waiver of immunity for monetary claims.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity from a counterclaim.

United States v. Royal Geropsychiatric Services, Inc. · filed 1998-06-02

Neither §§ 1331 nor 1346 support a waiver of sovereign immunity for this counterclaim.

Section 1331 grants federal question jurisdiction but does not itself waive the United States’ sovereign immunity for money claims.

Reed v. Reno · filed 1998-06-08

Section 1331’s general grant of federal question jurisdiction, however, “does not by its own terms waive sovereign immunity and vest in district courts plenary jurisdiction” over claims for money judgments against the United States.

Section 1331 does not waive federal sovereign immunity; a plaintiff suing the United States or a federal instrumentality must identify a separate statutory waiver.

Horvath v. Federal Deposit Insurance · filed 1998-08-31

Additionally, given that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction empowered only to hear those cases authorized and defined in the Constitution which have been entrusted to them under a jurisdictional grant by Congress, when a plaintiff seeks to sue the United States or an instrumentality thereof, he cannot rely on the general federal question jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but must instead identify a specific statutory provision that waives the government’s sovereign immunity from suit.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Koehler v. USA · filed 1998-09-16

It is well settled, however, that sovereign immunity is not waived by a general jurisdictional statute such as 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not waive federal sovereign immunity; a plaintiff suing the United States or one of its instrumentalities must rely on a specific statutory waiver.

M.R. (Vega Alta), Inc. v. Caribe General Electric Products, Inc. · filed 1998-12-03

Moreover, when suing the United States or an instrumentality thereof, a plaintiff may not rely upon the general federal question jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but must bring suit pursuant to a specific statutory provision that waives the government’s sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction for equitable relief from federal administrative action when a separate statutory waiver of sovereign immunity exists.

Shanti, Inc. v. Reno · filed 1999-02-16

28 U.S.C. § 1331 does, however, provide jurisdiction for equitable relief sought from federal administrative action, such as that sought in the present case, provided there exists a separate and independent statutory waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity from a damages claim.

Diaz v. Reno · filed 1999-03-15

Section 1331(a), however, does not waive sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

United Tribe of Shawnee Indians v. United States · filed 1999-06-29

In its second amended complaint, plaintiff asserts that the court has jurisdiction over each of plaintiffs eight claims based on the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, or the declaratory judgment statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. None of these statutes, however, constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity.

Wyoming v. United States · filed 1999-08-24

Section 1331 merely establishes a subject matter that is within the competence of federal courts to entertain; it does not waive the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity and cannot alone support a declaratory action against it.

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · filed 1999-08-12

Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, § 1337 and § 2001 cannot provide a jurisdictional base upon which a court may entertain Circuit City’s declaratory action against the United States.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over suits against the United States only when another authority waives sovereign immunity.

Sabhari v. Reno · filed 1999-11-26

Thus, if § 1331 is to be used to secure relief against the United States, it must be tied to some additional authority which waives the government's sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction over claims arising from federal government contracts, but jurisdiction alone does not waive sovereign immunity.

Up State Federal Credit Union, 1916 Black River Blvd., Rome, Ny v. Robert M. Walker, as Acting Secretary of the Army of · filed 1999-12-23

The Credit Union could invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1994), because "contracts with the government are governed by federal common law, and ... subject matter jurisdiction under section 1331 thus exists over causes of action arising from contracts to which the government is a party.” ... A showing of federal question jurisdiction, however, does not relieve the Credit Union of its burden to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive a federal agency’s sovereign immunity.

Normandy Pointe Associates v. Federal Emergency Management Agency · filed 2000-03-16

In the present case, Normandy alleges that the Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides it with original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Normandy also alleges that the Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201-2202. Neither of the foregoing statutes provides a waiver of FEMA’s sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Coolman v. United States Internal Revenue Service · filed 2000-04-26

However, sovereign immunity is not waived by general jurisdictional statutes like 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 grants general federal-question jurisdiction but requires a separate waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Devore v. United States · filed 2000-06-15

However, section 1331 merely operate as a grant of general jurisdiction and requires an accompanying waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not itself waive the United States’ sovereign immunity for a claim seeking equitable relief.

Stanley F. Cermak, Sr. And Raymond Cermak, Sr. v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of Interior · filed 2000-12-13

However, none of the statutes cited by the Cermaks (28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1346, and 1353) constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to their claim for equitable relief.

Section 1331 is a general jurisdictional statute that does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Carpenter v. Commissioner · filed 2001-03-23

Sections 1331, 1340, and 1361 are general jurisdictional statutes that do not waive sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants district courts jurisdiction over federal questions but does not itself waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Entertainment Network, Inc. v. Lappin · filed 2001-04-18

Although 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” § 1331 “does not by itself operate as a waiver of sovereign immunity.”

Section 1331 does not waive federal sovereign immunity and cannot alone confer jurisdiction over a civil action against the federal government.

Berman v. United States · filed 2001-09-05

General jurisdictional statutes such as 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1340 do not waive sovereign immunity and therefore cannot be the basis for jurisdiction over a civil action against the federal government.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim based solely on immunity from attachment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, because that immunity is not an independent cause of action.

In Re: B-727 200 · filed 2001-11-01

The right to be free from attachment, however, concerns FSIA immunity (28 U.S.C. §§ 1602- 1611) and is not an independent cause of action that would fall under § 1331 (federal question).

Section 1331 does not waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity.

State of Wyoming v. United States · filed 2002-02-07

General jurisdictional statutes such as 28 U.S.C. § 1331 do not waive the Government’s sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants general federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity from suit.

Cheyenne-Arapaho Gaming Commission v. National Indian Gaming Commission · filed 2002-07-11

Additionally, § 1331 cannot be used as a basis for jurisdiction over a suit against the United States; because, although it grants general jurisdiction, § 1331 does not waive the government’s sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive federal sovereign immunity; a plaintiff suing the United States or one of its instrumentalities must identify a separate statutory waiver.

Peoples National Bank v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States · filed 2002-10-08

When a plaintiff sues the United States or any instrumentality thereof, it may not rely on the general federal question jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but must specify a statutory provision that waives the government’s sovereign immunity from suit.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a claim against a federal agency when sovereign immunity has not been waived.

Holloway v. England · filed 2002-10-11

The combined operation of Section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), codified 5 U.S.C. § 702, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 did not create jurisdiction in this case because there has been no waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive sovereign immunity.

Barber v. Sec Dept Vet Affair · filed 2002-10-22

He argues that the district court had jurisdiction over his claims against the VA under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1346(b)(1). These general jurisdiction statutes do not ...constitute waivers of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Liverman v. Committee · filed 2002-10-23

Aware of this jurisdictional hurdle to maintenance of his suit, Mr. Liverman argues that by enacting 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides for federal court jurisdiction of all civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” Congress has effectively waived sovereign immunity in all federal question cases. Mr. Liverman’s argument is without merit. Obviously, acceptance of such an argument would necessarily eliminate the doctrine of sovereign immunity as a jurisdictional bar to suits against the United States.

Section 1331 does not waive federal sovereign immunity or itself authorize relief against a federal official.

Millet v. United States Department of the Army · filed 2002-12-13

General jurisdictional statutes, such as 28 U.S.C. § 1331, do not provide an express waiver of sovereign immunity allowing a party to obtain relief against a federal official.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity or provide jurisdiction over a claim for a money judgment against it.

Leveris v. England · filed 2003-03-07

After Sibley, I can only conclude that he has made a request for money judgment for which this court has no jurisdiction under the APA or 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity from suit.

United States v. Zajanckauskas · filed 2003-05-09

It is clear, however, that § 1331 does not waive sovereign immunity for purposes of a suit against the United States.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

San Carlos Apache Tribe v. United States · filed 2003-07-09

Neither 28 U.S.C. § 1331 nor § 1362 waives sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not provide a general waiver of sovereign immunity for claims against the United States.

Pollock v. Ridge · filed 2004-02-18

Section 1331, however, does not contain a general waiver of sovereign immunity and, therefore, does not save this claim from dismissal.

Section 1331 does not waive sovereign immunity for a retaliation claim.

Buckles v. Indian Health Service/Belcourt Service Unit · filed 2004-03-30

As noted above, the Plaintiffs are seeking relief based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction, and 5 U.S.C. § 552a, the Privacy Act, neither of which provides a waiver of immunity for retaliation.

Section 1331 does not waive federal sovereign immunity; a plaintiff suing the United States or a federal agency must identify a separate statutory waiver.

Chamber of Greater Baton Rouge v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · filed 2004-06-18

When a plaintiff seeks to sue the United States or an instrumentality or agency thereof, he may not rely on the general federal question jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but instead must identify a ... specific statutory provision that waives the government’s sovereign immunity from suit.

Section 1331 confers general federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Antlocer v. United States · filed 2004-06-22

We reject Antlocer’s contention that 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1340, and 1343, statutes conferring general jurisdiction, are sufficient to establish jurisdiction, because these statutes do not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity; jurisdiction requires a separate statutory waiver.

Neighbors for Rational Development, Inc. v. Norton · filed 2004-08-04

Consequently, district court jurisdiction cannot be based on § 1331 unless some other statute waives sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’s sovereign immunity.

Magiera v. Norton · filed 2004-09-02

Sections 1331, 1353, 1361, and 1362 of Title 28 do not contain waivers of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants general federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States v. Mischo · filed 2005-02-14

First, the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is a general jurisdictional statute which cannot and does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Murrhee v. Principi · filed 2005-04-14

Section 1331 creates federal question jurisdiction for “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” but it does not waive sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Aloupis v. United States · filed 2005-09-06

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 do not provide a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity; a separate waiver is required.

Delgado v. Gonzales · filed 2005-11-02

We first reject Mr. Delgado’s claims that the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 waive sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself waive the United States' sovereign immunity.

Sanders v. US Congress · filed 2005-11-10

Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general grant of civil federal question jurisdiction to the district courts for actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. However, " § 1331 does not, in and of itself, create substantive rights in suits brought against the United States. Thus, if § 1331 is to be used to secure relief against the United States, it must be tied to some additional authority which waives the government's sovereign immunity." Sabhari v. Reno, 197 F.3d 938, 943 (8th Cir.1999). Plaintiff Sanders has failed to cite to this Court any basis for waiver of sovereign immunity other than § 1331. Thus, plaintiffs claims against the United States and the United States Congress are barred by the sovereign immunity doctrine.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself waive the United States’s sovereign immunity; relief against the United States requires a separate waiver.

Sanders v. United States Congress · filed 2005-11-10

Plaintiff Sanders has failed to cite to this Court any basis for waiver of sovereign immunity other than § 1331. Thus, plaintiffs claims against the United States and the United States Congress are barred by the sovereign immunity doctrine.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Western Shoshone National Council v. United States · filed 2005-12-20

The Court finds that Sections 1331, 1362, 2201, and 2202 are not waivers of sovereign immunity, and thus Plaintiffs cannot rely on those provisions as specific waivers of the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 is a general jurisdictional statute that does not confer jurisdiction over a suit against the United States without an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity.

Brewer v. Commissioner · filed 2006-05-12

Since §§ 1331 and 1340 are general jurisdictional statutes and do not suffice to confer jurisdiction in the absence of an explicit waiver of immunity by the United States, the court considers plaintiffs waiver arguments in turn.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction over claims against the government only when another statute waives sovereign immunity.

High Country Citizens Alliance v. Clarke · filed 2006-07-21

While 28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants the court jurisdiction over all “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States,” it does not independently waive the Government’s sovereign immunity; § 1331 will only confer subject matter jurisdiction where some other statute provides such a waiver.

Section 1331 does not create an independent cause of action or confer jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign when jurisdiction under the FSIA is absent.

Gutch v. Federal Republic of Germany · filed 2006-07-27

Federal question jurisdiction does not provide an independent cause of action. ... Because the plaintiff has not established jurisdiction under the FSIA, his claims fail to allege a federal question conferring jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity.

Harbert v. United States · filed 2006-11-14

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because § 1331 cannot be construed to constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not independently waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

P & v Enterprises v. United States Army Corps of Engineers · filed 2006-12-19

The plaintiffs bring this action under the general federal question statute and the Declaratory Judgment Act, neither of which operate as an independent waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not itself waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Buaiz v. United States · filed 2007-01-24

The other statutes cited in the Amended Complaint, including the APA, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the All Writs Act, and the Mandamus Act similarly contain no sovereign immunity waiver for these types of claims.

Section 1331 does not waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity.

Cuevas v. Department of Homeland Security · filed 2007-05-14

DHS has not waived its sovereign immunity by the operation of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

Section 1331 creates no substantive rights and does not confer jurisdiction over a claim against the United States without a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Takkallapalli v. Chertoff · filed 2007-05-24

In addition, § 1331 does not create any substantive rights or afford jurisdiction in the absence of a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not itself waive the sovereign immunity of the United States or its agencies.

Rzayeva v. United States · filed 2007-05-31

Neither the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor the Constitution operates in and of itself as a waiver of sovereign immunity.