28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331’s grant of federal-question jurisdiction does not override tribal sovereign immunity.

Farmer Oil & Gas Properties, LLC v. Southern Ute Indian Tribe · filed 2012-10-12

I begin with whether the Tribe has sovereign immunity from the instant suit because sovereign immunity trumps federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal jurisdiction over a claim that a tribal court erred in applying tribal sovereign immunity as a defense.

Eagleman v. Rocky Boys Chippewa-Cree Tribal Business Committee or Council · filed 2017-06-21

Here, tribal sovereign immunity arose as a defense in tribal court, and the allegation that the tribal court erred in applying the defense is not a question “arising under” federal law for purposes of § 1331.

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

Spurr v. Pope · filed 2019-08-26

But § 1331’s text fails to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when tribal sovereign immunity is the only federal issue raised.

State of Oklahoma Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma, a Federally Chartered Corporation · filed 1990-11-26

We believe that the Court’s decision in Graham forecloses any argument that the sovereign immunity of the Tribe is a sufficient question of federal law to allow removal of the case to federal court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim merely because a party may assert tribal sovereign immunity as a defense.

Queens, LLC, The v. Seneca-Cayuga Nation, The · filed 2022-10-12

Defendant’s invocation of tribal sovereign immunity is insufficient to set forth a federal question. In Becker v. Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, 770 F.3d 944, 948 (10th Cir. 2013), the Tenth Circuit clearly states that tribal sovereign immunity is a federal defense, which cannot establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not overcome a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity merely because the asserted claims arise under the Constitution.

Downs v. Department of Public Welfare · filed 1973-12-28

Thus, the plaintiffs’ assertion of this Court’s jurisdiction over the state instrumentalities, based on the self-executing nature of the Thirteenth Amendment and the fact that their claims arise under the constitution, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3), must be denied.

Section 1331’s general grant of federal-question jurisdiction does not abrogate a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak · filed 1991-06-24

As we have already noted, the text is no more specific than § 1331, the grant of general federal-question jurisdiction to district courts, and no one contends that § 1331 suffices to abrogate immunity for all federal questions.

Section 1331 does not direct federal courts to disregard a state’s sovereign immunity.

Townsend v. University of Alaska · filed 2008-09-05

Townsend also argues in passing that 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal question jurisdictional statute, grants jurisdiction over USERRA claims brought against a state by an individual, and thereby evinces an intent to abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity. Section 1331, however, “does not itself purport to direct federal courts to ignore a State’s sovereign immunity.”

Section 1331 jurisdiction is not categorically barred by the Eleventh Amendment whenever a state is a party.

Spicer v. Hilton · filed 1980-02-28

Although we have stated that the Eleventh Amendment has been interpreted as a jurisdictional bar, see Blake v. Kline, 612 F.2d 718 at 721 (3d Cir. 1979), we do not understand that to be an absolute bar to subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 under all circumstances when the state is a party.

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

Mathis v. Laird · filed 1971-04-01

... U.S.C. § 1331, the federal question statute, cannot apply as it does not waive the government’s sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim against the United States that does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Gardner v. United States of America, United States of America, Third-Party v. Alastair Kyle, Third-Party · filed 1971-07-01

Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides general federal question jurisdiction, is not applicable here since appellant’s claim does not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331(a) does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity from an action nominally brought against federal officers but actually seeking relief against the government.

Mcqueary v. Laird · filed 1971-10-21(a)

We agree with the trial court's judgment that this is an unconsented suit against the United States. No statutes cited and relied upon by the appellants for jurisdiction contain an express waiver of sovereign immunity. The courts shall not entertain an unconsented suit which, while nominally against officers of the United States, is in reality against the Government itself.

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

Housing Authority v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development · filed 1972-04-06

None of the statutes relied on by plaintiffs constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity. Section 1331 of Title 28 U.S.C. is a grant of federal question jurisdiction in private actions to the District Courts, not a waiver of sovereign immunity.

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

4 Fair empl.prac.cas. 878, 4 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7865 Howard Beale, Jr. v. Winston Blount, Postmaster, United States Post · filed 1972-06-14

Sections 1331 and 1343, Title 28, United States Code, may not be construed to constitute waivers of the federal government’s defense of sovereign immunity. ... Beale’s complaint thus alleges no proper jurisdictional basis for seeking reinstatement.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity, so jurisdiction over the United States still requires statutory consent to suit.

Darling v. United States · filed 1972-08-01

In their second cause of action, plaintiffs assert jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1340. These statutes do not, however, waive immunity of the United States from suit, and there is no jurisdiction over the United States unless Congress has consented by statute.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF KY. EX REL. HANCOCK v. Ruckelshaus · filed 1973-08-13

Section 1331 has never been construed as a waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States from suit.

Section 1331 does not overcome sovereign immunity for an affirmative counterclaim against the United States when the relevant statute waives immunity only for the Secretary of HUD.

United States v. Gregory Park, Section II, Inc. · filed 1974-03-26

Even assuming an allegation of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the waiver of sovereign immunity on behalf of the Secretary of HUD will not be considered a waiver of such immunity by the United States to permit counterclaims against it affording alternative relief, in such an action, as this, brought by the United States.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over claims challenging the constitutionality and legality of federal officials' conduct when sovereign immunity does not apply because the officials acted beyond statutory power or exercised power in a constitutionally void manner.

Red School House, Inc. v. Office of Economic Opportunity · filed 1974-10-08

Considering the conclusion reached on the merits of this case, this exception deprives OEO and its officers of the sovereign immunity defense. Without it, this case presents a federal question involving the constitutionality and legality of the conduct of federal officials acting under color of federal authority. Section 1331, therefore, is applicable and this Court has jurisdiction to decide the case.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims against federal housing officials when the National Housing Act's sue-and-be-sued provision waives sovereign immunity.

Brown v. Lynn · filed 1974-10-11

Basing jurisdiction upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 and 1361 and 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., the plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages in addition to declaratory and injunctive ... relief. ... This section is an effective waiver of sovereign immunity, and, as numerous decisions have concluded, the federal courts have the power to enforce the provisions of this Act against the Federal Government. ... Federal question jurisdiction is therefore clearly, proper in the instant suit.

Sovereign immunity does not defeat Section 1331 jurisdiction when federal officers are alleged to have acted beyond their statutory powers.

Hughes Aircraft Company v. Schlesinger · filed 1974-10-30

The defendant contends that the doctrine of sovereign immunity prevents 28 U.S.C. § 1331 from providing the jurisdictional base. Sovereign Immunity does not bar this suit because the actions of the federal officers have been sufficiently alleged to be beyond their statutory powers and thus would not be the actions of the sovereign.

Section 1331 does not waive sovereign immunity or authorize suit against a federal agency without a specific statutory waiver.

Brooks v. Brinegar · filed 1974-12-06

Furthermore, it is basic that the United States cannot be sued without its consent. United States v. Alabama, 313 U.S. 274, 61 S.Ct. 1011, 85 L.Ed. 1327. This being a suit against a Federal agency, the authority to sue it must be found in specific statutory language, or must be implied by virtue of the Agency’s being the offspring of a suable entity. Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 72 S.Ct. 410, 96 L.Ed. 534 (1952). It does not appear that the Department is the offspring of a suable entity, and it is apparent that none of the statutes relied on by Plaintiff, except 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c), confers upon her the authority to sue an agency of the United States.

Section 1331(a) supported jurisdiction over federal statutory claims against nongovernmental defendants but did not overcome the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Stray Calf v. Scott Land & Livestock Co. · filed 1975-01-31(a)

The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) with respect to plaintiffs and the non-governmental defendants,...but ...for reasons set forth below, the Court has determined it does not have jurisdiction over defendant United States.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity or itself supply consent to suit.

Committee to Establish the Gold Standard v. United States · filed 1975-02-14

Section 1331 does not, however, constitute a waiver of the sovereign immunity doctrine under which the United States, as a sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued.

Section 1331 does not waive sovereign immunity.

St. Louis University v. Blue Cross Hospital Serv., Inc. · filed 1975-02-18

Contrary to plaintiff's argument, neither 28 U.S.C. § 1331 nor the Administrative Procedure Act operates to waive sovereign immunity, Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council, supra, at 532; nor does the Administrative Procedure Act confer subject matter jurisdiction upon this Court.

Section 1331 does not overcome the United States' sovereign immunity when the government has not expressly or impliedly consented to suit.

Dry Creek Lodge, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation v. The United States of America · filed 1975-05-09

At the outset we conclude that the trial court was correct in dismissing the claims as to the United States, because it had neither expressly nor impliedly consented to the suit.

Section 1331 does not overcome sovereign immunity when the United States has not waived immunity for the requested contract-related relief.

International Engineering Company, Division of A-T-O, Inc. v. Elliott L. Richardson, Secretary of Defense · filed 1975-06-19

Finally, the bar of sovereign immunity prevents the district court from asserting jurisdiction through 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not authorize suit against the United States or overcome sovereign immunity absent a waiver.

Spain v. United States ex rel. Atomic Nuclear Regulatory Commission · filed 1975-07-11

... U.S.C. § 1331 contains no such authorization, and an examination of the records in these cases reveals no waiver by the United States of its sovereign immunity. Thus, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 cannot be sustained.

Section 1331 cannot overcome the Eleventh Amendment's prohibition on federal suits against a state.

Roena v. Camara De Comerciantes Mayoristas, Inc. · filed 1976-11-05

Title 28 U.S.C. 1331 cannot permit what the Constitution of the United States expressly forbids.

Section 1331 grants subject-matter jurisdiction but does not itself provide consent to sue the United States.

Estate of Arroyo González v. Wadsworth · filed 1976-12-29

Defendants are correct; 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers original jurisdiction on the district courts of all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. However, the United States is not, by acts giving rise to claims against it, bound to provide a remedy in the courts for enforcement of those claims.

Section 1331’s removal of the amount-in-controversy requirement for actions against the United States and its officials does not waive sovereign immunity for suits essentially seeking money judgments against the United States.

Larsen v. Hoffman · filed 1977-03-30

Section 2 of the Amendments eliminated the amount in controversy requirement for federal question actions against the United States, its officers, or employees. Even after amendment, however, it cannot be said that section 1331 constitutes “a waiver of the sovereign immunity doctrine under which the United States, as a sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued,” in actions ... seeking money judgments against the United States. ... Consequently, neither the APA nor section 1331, as recently amended, will avail as a basis for jurisdiction in the present cases.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to federal agency procedures when the plaintiff alleges officials acted unconstitutionally, notwithstanding a sovereign-immunity objection.

Six Nations Confederacy v. Andrus · filed 1977-07-12

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Defendants in their motion to dismiss and in their other responses to plaintiff’s motions allege that the Court lacks jurisdiction because it has failed to show that the United States waived sovereign immunity. The Court rejects this contention since plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the statute under which Docket No. 84 was filed and alleges that defendants acted in violation of the Constitution in processing Docket No. 84 before the Indian Claims Commission.

Section 1331 is a jurisdictional grant, not a waiver of federal sovereign immunity, so it cannot by itself authorize a constitutional suit against a federal department.

Donohue v. United States · filed 1977-08-26

Though it contemplates actions against the federal government, § 1331 is not, itself, a waiver of sovereign immunity against such actions, ... and in the absence of such a waiver, federal executive departments, such as HUD, are not subject to suit.

Section 1331(a) does not authorize a monetary claim against the United States without a specific waiver, and claims exceeding $10,000 belong in the Court of Claims.

DiLuigi v. Kafkalas · filed 1977-11-07(a)

Because as DiLuigi admits, his suit is against the United States, not against the Defendant in his personal capacity, DiLuigi must point to a specific statute allowing him to sue the United States for monetary damages. ... A claim against the United States in excess of $10,000 must be brought in the Court of Claims.

Section 1331(a) jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous constitutional claim does not depend on the claim's ultimate merits, but Section 1331 does not itself waive federal sovereign immunity.

Clark v. United States · filed 1978-01-30(a)

But the jurisdiction of this Court does not turn on the merits of plaintiffs’ claim. Where the plaintiffs’ jurisdiction-conferring claims are not insubstantial on their face, further consideration of the merits of the claim are irrelevant to a determination of the Court’s jurisdiction of the subject matter. ... Contrary to the suggestion of plaintiffs, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not in itself operate to waive the requirement that particular agencies, officers or employees thereof be named. Section 1331 has not in the past been held to preclude the application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive sovereign immunity from a claim against the federal government.

Concerned Citizens of Bushkill Township v. Costle · filed 1978-03-01

The Authority cannot rely on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 2201, because these statutes do not waive sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive sovereign immunity, which may still bar recovery from governmental units.

Nix v. Sweeney · filed 1978-05-08

However, the defense of sovereign immunity is not waived by § 1331; under many circumstances it remains to bar recovery from governmental units.

Section 1331(a) does not authorize suit against a state in federal court because it contains no specific congressional authorization subjecting states to federal jurisdiction.

Burlington Northern, Inc. v. State · filed 1978-11-13(a)

This argument fails because there is no specific mention of states in 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 does not overcome sovereign immunity for monetary relief requiring payment from the federal treasury.

Glines v. Wade · filed 1978-10-05

His relief must come from the Court of Claims.

Section 1331 does not overcome sovereign immunity for monetary relief requiring payment from the federal treasury.

Glines v. Wade · filed 1978-11-22

His relief must come from the Court of Claims.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a dispute concerning the construction or effect of federal law but does not waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity.

Clark v. Stetson · filed 1979-01-17(a)

This action, therefore, involves a federal question because it concerns a dispute as to the right of Defendant Stetson to pay out funds under and in accordance with the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 2771. Nevertheless, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not waive the government’s defense of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive sovereign immunity for an official-capacity suit against a federal officer and agency seeking relief affecting federal interests.

Salzman v. Stetson · filed 1979-07-06

Because defendant Stetson is sued in his official capacity (see Amended Complaint, ¶¶2, 4) and the Air Force is a government agency, sovereign immunity bars this action except to the extent Congress has waived the immunity.

Section 1331(a) is not a waiver of federal sovereign immunity, and absent an explicit waiver it does not support an official-capacity action against a federal officer.

Sharrock v. Harris · filed 1979-07-13(a)

Accordingly, as the Court finds that there has been no explicit waiver of the defense of sovereign immunity in suits brought under section 1331, the action against defendant Harris in her official capacity must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over federal officers charged with constitutional violations because sovereign immunity does not protect officials alleged to have exceeded constitutional authority.

Doe v. United States Civil Service Commission · filed 1980-01-16

this Court has jurisdiction under section 1331 because the sovereign immunity defense is not available to defendants charged with violating the Constitution.

Section 1331 may provide jurisdiction over a federal unjust-enrichment claim against the United States, but it does not itself waive sovereign immunity.

A. L. Rowan & Son, General Contractors, Inc. v. Department of Housing and Urban Development · filed 1980-02-13

However, this would only get the plaintiff into the courtroom and would not keep it there, for, unlike § 1346, § 1331 implies no general waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over nonfrivolous federal claims seeking equitable relief against a federal agency, and APA Section 702 waives sovereign immunity for such an action.

Johnsrud v. Carter · filed 1980-05-16

Thus, we hold that the district court has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that the action, as one for equitable relief against an agency of the United States, is not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331(a) authorizes review of federal agency action and claims for injunctive relief, but it does not waive sovereign immunity for monetary claims against federal defendants.

Parkview Corp. v. DEPARTMENT OF ARMY, ETC. · filed 1980-05-28(a)

the general federal-question statute, provides this court with jurisdiction to review the decisions and actions of federal agencies. ... However, § 1331(a) does not waive the federal defendants’ right to sovereign immunity with regard to claims for monetary damages. ... However, I see no reason to dismiss any of the plaintiff’s substantive allegations nor its claim for injunctive relief on this ground since § 1331(a) provides this court with jurisdiction over such claims.

The 1976 amendment to 5 U.S.C. § 702 waived sovereign immunity for equitable actions brought under Section 1331.

Com. of Puerto Rico v. Muskie · filed 1981-01-09

Obviously Section 1331 could only serve the purpose envisioned for it by the Supreme Court if the 1976 amendments constituted a waiver of sovereign immunity respecting suits brought under that Section.

The Administrative Procedure Act waives sovereign immunity for equitable actions under Section 1331 challenging military-board action, permitting review for arbitrariness and capriciousness.

Neal v. Secretary of the Navy and Commandant of the Marine Corps · filed 1981-02-02

... U.S.C. § 702 (1976), waives sovereign immunity for equitable actions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... We agree with the district court in this case that we have both the power and the duty to review the actions of the EPB and the BCNR to ascertain whether there is any basis for plaintiff’s claim that those agencies acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over equitable constitutional claims against federal officials, subject to the separate question whether sovereign immunity has been waived.

Doe v. Alexander · filed 1981-03-27

Since plaintiff alleges a constitutional claim this court has jurisdiction over the equitable claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The question presented is whether the government has waived its sovereign immunity with respect to the equitable claims.

Section 1331(a) presents a federal question when federal officials allegedly exceed statutory authority, but Section 1331(a) itself does not waive sovereign immunity.

Laguna Hermosa Corporation v. B. E. Martin · filed 1981-05-01(a)

Laguna presented a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) by alleging that B. E. Martin, as the Bureau of Reclamation’s Regional Director, and Robert Wier, as the Bureau of Reclamation’s Recreation Manager at the Lake exceeded their statutory authority. ... Section 1331(a) does not waive sovereign immunity.

Sections 1331 and 1340 are general jurisdictional grants, not waivers of sovereign immunity, and cannot sustain a tax suit against the United States without specific congressional consent.

Shaffer v. Commissioner · filed 1981-06-11

The statutory bases asserted by the plaintiff cannot suffice to waive sovereign immunity and therefore provide a valid jurisdictional basis. Sections 1331 and 1340, as general jurisdictional grants for certain actions, cannot sustain the instant action.

Section 1331(a) may present a substantial federal question while still failing to supply jurisdiction because it neither waives federal sovereign immunity nor determines the proper forum for an essentially monetary claim.

Kester v. Campbell · filed 1981-07-27(a)

We agree with the plaintiffs that their claims raise a substantial federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (1976). But this statute neither waives the federal government's sovereign immunity to suit nor indicates the appropriate forum for adjudication of the controversy.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over an official-capacity suit effectively seeking Treasury payments or control of public administration unless sovereign immunity has been expressly waived.

Boyce v. United States · filed 1981-09-17

However, absent an express waiver of sovereign immunity, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over actions against the government and its officers that in effect seek disbursement from the Treasury or decrees affecting public administration.

Section 1331(a) is jurisdictional only, creates no substantive right to money damages against the United States, and does not authorize suit absent a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Devilbiss v. Small Business Administration · filed 1981-10-19(a)

Further, as the district court concluded, the Tucker Act and section 1331 are merely jurisdictional. These statutes do not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages. ... The result is inescapable that the Tucker Act and section 1331 do not authorize this suit against the federal government where there is no waiver of sovereign immunity.

Removing Section 1331’s amount threshold for monetary claims against the United States did not waive sovereign immunity or permit district-court jurisdiction over claims reserved to the Court of Claims.

Heart of the Valley Metropolitan Sewerage District v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · filed 1981-11-27

Similarly, the Court rejects the District’s contention that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers jurisdiction on this Court. Although Public Law 94-574 revised section 1331 to remove the jurisdictional requirement for federal question jurisdiction over monetary claims against the United States, the Amendments do not provide a waiver of sovereign immunity so as to allow district ... courts to exercise federal question jurisdiction over monetary claims against the United States.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a Bivens constitutional claim, and the Administrative Procedure Act's Section 702 waives sovereign immunity for nonmonetary nonstatutory review of federal agency action under Section 1331.

Church of Scientology of California v. Linberg · filed 1981-12-14

The court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as the complaint states a ... cause of action under the Federal Constitution. ... To the extent that ... leaves any doubt about the applicability of section 702 to nonstatutory review actions under section 1331 for nonmonetary relief, the court holds that such application is compelled by the legislative history of the 1976 amendment.

Section 1331 is a general jurisdictional grant and does not authorize a suit against the United States absent a specific waiver of sovereign immunity.

Glauber Valve Co., Inc. v. United States · filed 1982-01-07

Initially, it is asserted that this case is one arising under the laws of the United States pursuant to the jurisdictional grant of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As pointed out by the defendant, that statute is only a general grant of jurisdiction and does not purport to authorize suit against the United States without a specific waiver of its sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 is jurisdictional only and does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity; another statute must supply an applicable waiver.

Bauer v. McCoy · filed 1982-01-22

The reason is the absence of an applicable sovereign immunity waiver. ... is a jurisdictional statute which does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity. ... It affords subject matter jurisdiction only if another statute waives the immunity.

Section 1331 confers subject-matter jurisdiction over qualifying federal claims against the United States and its officials but does not itself waive sovereign immunity.

Helton v. United States · filed 1982-02-19

federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over actions against the United States, its agencies or its officers acting in their official capacities, which arise under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, without regard to amount in controversy. While this statute confers subject matter jurisdiction over the defined actions against the United States, it is not in itself a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive sovereign immunity and therefore does not authorize damages against the United States or federal officials in their official capacities.

Garcia v. United States · filed 1982-05-03

section 1331, one of the jurisdictional basis upon which plaintiff brings this suit, is not a waiver of. sovereign immunity. ... Therefore, plaintiff’s claim against the United States for damages is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction but does not itself waive sovereign immunity for suits arising under federal law.

Lutz v. United States Postal Service · filed 1982-05-14

It is equally well settled that the other jurisdictional statutes specified in the complaint, §§ 1331, 1361 and 1346, do not by themselves waive the sovereign’s immunity to suits arising under federal law, as this one purports to be.

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

Murray v. United States · filed 1982-08-26

Appellant finally alleges that the refusal of his offer of redemption unconstitutionally deprived him of due process rights. The actions of government officials are said to have raised a substantial federal question within the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The existence of federal question jurisdiction, however, does not remove the barrier of sovereign immunity urged by the government against proceeding with this suit.

Section 1331(a), combined with the Administrative Procedure Act's waiver of sovereign immunity, provides jurisdiction over claims for nonmonetary relief against a federal agency.

Sheehan v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, an Instrumentality of the Departments of the Army and of t · filed 1982-09-20(a)

In our original decision in this case, we held that the district court had jurisdiction ... of plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), and that the court had jurisdiction of plaintiff’s claims for nonmonetary relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) and the waiver of sovereign immunity contained in 5 U.S.C. § 702. ... Therefore, as defendant concedes, our judgment concerning plaintiff’s claims for nonmonetary relief should be reinstated and this case remanded for further proceedings on those claims.

Section 1331(a) supports adjudication of a constitutional declaratory claim against federal officers despite sovereign immunity, although a damages claim exceeding $10,000 against the United States remains barred.

Clark v. United States · filed 1982-10-27(a)

We find jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) to hear the declaratory judgment claim and hold against plaintiffs on the merits. ... We reaffirm that plaintiffs' request for damages against the United States in excess of $10,000 is barred in the district courts by the Tucker Act and doctrine of sovereign immunity. However, sovereign immunity does not preclude a determination of the merits of plaintiffs' prayer for declaratory relief.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity; a waiver must come from the statute giving rise to the cause of action.

Kolody v. United States Government · filed 1982-10-22

Even if the court were to infer that Kolody sought to predicate subject matter jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the doctrine of sovereign immunity would still serve to bar this action. ... “Section 1331 is in no way a general waiver of sovereign immunity,” and any waiver of sovereign immunity “must be sought in the statute giving rise to the cause of action.” 635 F.2d 88, 94 (2d Cir. 1980).

Section 1331(a) supplies the jurisdictional basis for a Bivens claim but does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States or its instrumentalities.

Spilman v. Crebo · filed 1982-11-30(a)

The United States and the Internal Revenue Service are not subject to a ... claim because of their sovereign immunity. ... The jurisdictional base for a ... claim is 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), which does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States and its instrumentalities. ... No other statute cited by plaintiff confers jurisdiction on this court in a suit against the United States or its agencies.

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

Jones v. Schweiker · filed 1983-01-19(a)

Finally, 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) does not provide a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 is only a jurisdictional grant and does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States for constitutional claims.

Radin v. United States of America and National Mediation Board · filed 1983-01-27

The claims in ... were based on specific constitutional provisions and not on § 1331, which is merely a jurisdictional grant that in no way affects the sovereign immunity of the United States.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity and therefore cannot provide jurisdiction over indemnity or constitutional-tort claims against the government.

Keene Corporation v. United States · filed 1983-02-10

it is clear that Section 1331 does not establish a waiver of sovereign immunity and therefore cannot act as a basis for federal jurisdiction in this case. ... General federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is also lacking because it contains no waiver of sovereign immunity. ... We agree with Judge Goettel that insofar as Keene relies on Section 1331 to establish federal jurisdiction for a suit involving a constitutional tort ... it is mistaken precisely because there is no waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive sovereign immunity for damages claims against the United States or its instrumentalities.

Navy, Marshall & Gordon, P.C. v. United States International Development-Cooperation Agency · filed 1983-02-23

Neither 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor any provision of the Constitution, is a waiver of sovereign immunity such as to enable plaintiff to recover damages against the U.S. or any of its instrumentalities.

Section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act waives sovereign immunity for a declaratory-judgment action against the United States grounded in Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction.

Utah ex rel. Division of State Lands v. United States · filed 1983-04-15

Similarly, in the case at bar, Utah argues that § 702 waives immunity for a declaratory judgment action in which subject matter jurisdiction also is based on a federal question. Therefore, we find that a declaratory judgment action will lie against the United States in the present dispute.

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

Hayes v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 1983-04-18

It is also clear that broad jurisdictional statutes like 28 U.S.C. § 1331 do not operate — in and of themselves — as waivers of sovereign immunity.

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

Sellers v. United States · filed 1983-05-13(a)

Section 1331(a) is not a waiver of sovereign immunity, ... nor is the Constitution.

Section 1331(a) supplies no jurisdictional ground against the United States absent a waiver of sovereign immunity and does not itself waive that immunity.

United States v. Perry · filed 1983-05-20(a)

Perrys argue that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331(a) grants jurisdiction over their equitable claims, but as the district court held: "in the absence of a waiver of sovereign immunity, this statutory provision affords no jurisdictional grounds." See DeVilbiss v. Small Business Administration, 661 F.2d 716, 718 (8th Cir.1981). Thus, neither of these statutes affords a waiver of sovereign immunity.

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

Holloman v. Watt · filed 1983-06-20

Appellees argue the district court could award damages for loss of tribal rights under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (1976), because resolution of the issue required construction of the various federal constitutional and statutory provisions. Section 1331 does not waive the government's sovereign immunity from suit.

Section 1331 does not waive federal sovereign immunity or confer jurisdiction over a federal agency unless the government has consented to suit.

Swift v. United States Border Patrol · filed 1983-05-12

Neither of Swift’s grounds for jurisdiction, that is, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and ... satisfy this requirement. ... Accordingly, the complaint alleges no basis for jurisdiction over the United States Border Patrol, “an agency of the Federal Government”.

Section 702 of the APA waives immunity for proper Section 1331 equitable actions, but the waiver preserves exclusive statutory review procedures and does not permit a separate action challenging an SEC investigation or subpoena.

Sprecher v. Graber · filed 1983-08-26

We have now abandoned this alternative ground of Watson and read section 702 as a waiver of immunity where a proper action is brought under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. ... We see no reason to conclude other than that Section 78u(c) is the exclusive method by which the validity of SEC investigations and subpoenas may be tested in the federal courts. ... We hold, therefore, that Counts 1 and 2 are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Sections 1331 and 1343 may confer jurisdiction over constitutional claims but do not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Metadure Corp. v. United States · filed 1983-09-01

In response, plaintiffs contend that they assert constitutional deprivation and not tortious conduct, and they cite this court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Although conferring federal court jurisdiction to redress certain constitutional claims, those provisions do not affect the government’s sovereign immunity.

For constitutional claims seeking nonmonetary relief against federal officials under Section 1331(a), Section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act waives sovereign immunity.

Pavlov v. Parsons · filed 1983-10-14(a)

Recently, the fifth circuit held that 5 U.S.C. § 702 (1976) waived the sovereign immuni ... ty defense in actions for non-monetary relief against federal officials alleging constitutional deprivations brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... Plaintiff alleges both constitutional and common law claims against O’Neill and that all acts were ... hence sovereign immunity does not bar the request for injunctive relief.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity and therefore does not confer jurisdiction over Bivens constitutional claims brought directly against the federal government.

Van Schaick v. United States · filed 1983-11-22

This court has no jurisdiction to hear these claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (cited by the plaintiff in his supplemental trial brief as a basis for jurisdiction) or the Constitution. Neither § 1331 nor the Constitution waives the sovereign immunity of the United States.

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

Chicago & Illinois Midland Railway Co. v. Marsh · filed 1984-01-09

The United States, however, has not waived sovereign immunity under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, or 1361.

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

Schaut v. United States · filed 1984-03-08

Nor does the general federal question jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, waive sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 actions seeking nonmonetary relief may invoke the sovereign-immunity waiver in 5 U.S.C. § 702, but Bivens actions seeking monetary relief may not.

Windsor v. a Federal Executive Agency · filed 1984-03-13

... which operates as a waiver of sovereign-immunity in actions for nonmonetary relief brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ... is inapplicable to Bivens-type actions in which, by definition, monetary relief is sought.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law and the Constitution but does not itself waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Murray v. United States · filed 1984-05-14

It is clear Plaintiffs’ claim arises under 26 U.S.C. § 6337 and the due process clause of the United States Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 thus affords a jurisdictional basis. ... In considering whether the government has consented to being sued, it should be noted that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is not a general waiver of immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive sovereign immunity for actions essentially seeking money judgments from the United States.

Hohri v. United States · filed 1984-05-17

The general federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, does not waive sovereign immunity in actions essentially seeking money judgments from the United States.

Section 1331 does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States or its agencies from damages suits.

Benvenuti v. Department of Defense · filed 1984-05-29

None of the statutes cited by plaintiff — the general federal question provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the All Writs and Declaratory Judgment Acts, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2201-02 —nor the Constitution itself — operate as such waivers.

Section 1331 does not override a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

St. Louis County, Mo. v. CITY OF TOWN · filed 1984-06-29

The plaintiffs seem to argue that the State may be sued under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but § 1331 does not override state immunity.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over an action against the United States or a federal agency unless sovereign immunity has been waived.

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. United States · filed 1984-07-12

Plaintiff subsequently filed for leave to amend its complaint to allege additional bases of jurisdiction, specifically 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, and 2201; plaintiff also included a reference to 5 U.S.C. § 702 as providing a waiver of sovereign immunity. ... Unless sovereign immunity has been waived, this court is without jurisdiction over these defendants. ... None of plaintiffs asserted bases provides federal subject matter jurisdiction and the action must be DISMISSED.

Section 1331 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity and therefore cannot alone support claims against the federal government.

Keene Corp. v. United States · filed 1984-07-31

As for federal question jurisdiction, ... held that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity and cannot serve as the basis of Keene’s complaint. That is equally true here.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction to hear federal claims that are not otherwise barred, but it does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Arvanis v. Noslo Engineering Consultants, Inc. · filed 1984-07-31

No citation is needed to reject appellants’ suggestion that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 waives sovereign immunity. It merely gives the district court jurisdiction to hear federal claims that are not otherwise barred.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over otherwise cognizable federal claims but does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Arvanis v. Noslo Engineering Consultants · filed 1984-08-27

No citation is needed to reject appellants' suggestion that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 waives sovereign immunity. It merely gives the district court jurisdiction to hear federal claims that are not otherwise barred.

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

State of New Mexico v. Donald T. Regan, Etc. · filed 1984-10-09

While 28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants to the district court broad subject matter jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, that section does not include a general waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States.

Section 1331 does not itself waive sovereign immunity and therefore cannot support a claim for monetary relief against the United States.

Gochnour v. Mr. John O. Marsh, Jr., Secretary of the U.S. Army · filed 1985-01-02

Section 1331 cannot be the basis of monetary relief since there is no waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not overcome the United States’ sovereign immunity, although § 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act waives immunity and creates a cause of action for qualifying equitable claims.

Willis v. United States · filed 1985-01-11

... Furthermore, plaintiff cannot maintain this suit under general federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the action is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Plaintiff’s equitable claims, however, are cognizable because of the creation of a cause of action and waiver of sovereign immunity by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702.

Section 1331 does not apply to monetary FLSA claims against the United States that are strictly Tucker Act claims.

Davila v. Weinberger · filed 1985-01-03

... In actuality, only plaintiffs’ claim for a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 could be argued to place venue in this Court. Plaintiffs’ claims for monetary damages for alleged violation of the FLSA are strictly Tucker Act claims. Therefore, the general federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the commerce clause, 28 U.S.C. § 1337, and their corresponding venue provisions, are not applicable.

The Administrative Procedure Act’s Section 702 sovereign-immunity waiver applies to equitable suits invoking Section 1331 even when the suit itself is not brought under the APA.

Alabama v. Bowsher · filed 1990-03-30

Although the instant suit is not brought under the APA, the caselaw of this circuit confirms that “the waiver applies to any suit, whether under the APA, [28 U.S.C.] § 1331, § 1361, or any other statute.” ... Accordingly, this Court rules that the plaintiffs’ action is not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity because section 702 expressly waives that immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive federal sovereign immunity, and the APA's waiver does not cover a contract-based action against the United States governed by the Tucker Act.

Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. United States · filed 1990-04-30

Also, jurisdiction over a suit against the United States cannot be based upon 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, because that statute does not waive the government's sovereign immunity and the waiver of sovereign immunity in the APA does not extend to actions founded upon a contract with the United States, which are governed by the Tucker Act.

Section 1331 grants subject-matter competence over federal questions but does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity.

Juniper Development Group v. United States · filed 1990-08-07

Finally, plaintiffs allege that this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which states that district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” This statute, however, is not a general waiver of sovereign immunity, but merely establishes subject matter that is within the competence of federal courts to entertain. ... Therefore, § 1331 cannot be the basis of jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 supplies arising-under jurisdiction for a nonmonetary suit against a federal official when Section 702 separately waives sovereign immunity, while Section 1361 independently supports relief in the nature of mandamus.

Standard Havens, Inc. v. Manbeck · filed 1991-05-02

Three separate statutory provisions together operate to confer jurisdiction on this Court over this lawsuit. First, the question in this suit “arises under” a law or laws of the United States. Second, Congress has waived, in 5 U.S.C. § 702, the bar of sovereign immunity which would otherwise deprive this Court of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Clearly, the Court has jurisdiction over this action which is indisputably “in the nature of mandamus.”

Section 1331's federal-question grant does not overcome sovereign immunity when the federal government has not consented to suit.

North Side Lumber Co. v. Block · filed 1985-02-20

But the analysis of jurisdiction cannot stop with § 1331, because the claims in this case are in essence against the federal government, and thus are barred by sovereign immunity unless the government has consented to suit.

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

Gilbert v. DaGrossa · filed 1985-04-05

There is no statutory waiver of sovereign immunity in the instant case. Gilbert’s attempted reliance on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is misplaced. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 merely provides that the district court shall have original jurisdiction in all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1985). It cannot by itself be construed as constituting a waiver of the government’s defense of sovereign immunity.

Once the Government has waived sovereign immunity, § 1331 confers jurisdiction over a civil action arising under federal law.

Galanos v. United States · filed 1985-04-29

While there is a question raised by the Government as to the applicability of this Act to the instant cause, should Plaintiffs’ claim that the Government has waived its immunity as to this action prove to be correct, jurisdiction would be conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Matter of Johnson · filed 1985-07-11

Section 1331 of Title 28 of the Code is merely the general federal question jurisdictional statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Section 1334 of Title 28 of the Code provides for federal court jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters. 28 U.S.C. § 1334. Neither of these two statutes support jurisdiction in this case as neither contain an express waiver of immunity.

Section 1331 is not a general waiver of sovereign immunity and cannot by itself support relief against the United States or its officers.

Blassingame v. Secretary of the Navy · filed 1985-11-14

Neither the federal question statute, ... nor the mandamus power, nor the Declaratory Judgment Act contain the requisite waiver of sovereign immunity for a suit such as this to proceed.

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

Uhrig v. Regan · filed 1985-12-06

Section 1331 grants original jurisdiction in all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; § 1340 grants original jurisdiction in any civil action arising under any Act of Congress providing for internal revenue; and § 1342 grants jurisdiction in certain civil rights actions. These broad grants of jurisdiction are insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court because they do not contain consent by the United States to be sued.

When APA § 702 waives sovereign immunity, § 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims seeking review of federal agency action.

Willis v. United States · filed 1986-03-31

Thus, although sovereign immunity is waived pursuant to section 702, Willis’s claims rest on his rights under the fourth and fifth amendment, and subject matter jurisdiction arises from 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal question jurisdiction.

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

MacK v. US, FBI · filed 1986-04-18

Neither the federal Constitution nor the general federal question jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, constitutes a waiver by the United States of its sovereign immunity.

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

Mack v. United States · filed 1986-04-18

Neither the federal Constitution nor the general federal question jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, constitutes a waiver by the United States of its sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants original jurisdiction over actions arising under federal law but does not itself waive sovereign immunity.

B.R. MacKay & Sons, Inc. v. United States · filed 1986-04-30

Section 1331 grants federal courts original subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions which arise under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” However, Section 1331 does not, of itself, waive the government’s sovereign immunity from suit.

Section 1331 does not itself waive the federal government's sovereign immunity from suit.

Jefferson County, Mo. v. United States · filed 1986-09-10

Nevertheless, § 1331 does not, of its own force, waive the federal government's sovereign immunity from suit.

Section 1331 does not waive federal sovereign immunity; any waiver must come from the underlying substantive statute.

Alabama Ex Rel. Graddick v. Veterans Administration · filed 1986-11-07

While the VA is correct in stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 has never been construed to constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity and that waiver must be found, if at all, in the underlying statute, the VA incorrectly contends that ... still bars compliance suits by states against federal facilities.

Section 1331 is only jurisdictional, creates no substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages, and does not waive sovereign immunity.

Hagemeier v. Block · filed 1986-11-26

Section 1331 is merely a jurisdictional statute that does not create any substantive rights that may be enforced against the United States for money damages.

Section 1331 is jurisdictional only; it neither waives federal sovereign immunity nor creates substantive rights enforceable against the United States for money damages.

Hagemeier v. Block · filed 1986-12-29

Appellants bring their claims pursuant to two statutes, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331 and 1337 (1982), 6 neither of which constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity. Section 1331 is merely a jurisdictional statute that does not create any substantive rights that may be enforced against the United States for money damages.

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

Thomas v. Pierce · filed 1987-05-20

Although 28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants district courts broad subject matter jurisdiction to hear all civil actions under the United States Constitution, laws or treaties, it is well settled that the section is not a general waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 alone does not waive federal sovereign immunity; APA Section 702 permits Section 1331 claims against the United States only for relief other than money damages.

MacMann v. J.R. Titus, in His Capacity as Commander of the South Weymouth Naval Air Station, a Facility of the U · filed 1987-05-28

Although broad, this grant by itself does not provide jurisdiction for actions against the United States. ... Congress, through 5 U.S.C. § 702 (Supp.III 1986), has waived sovereign immunity for those claims arising under section 1331 that seek “relief other than money damages.”

Section 1331’s general federal-question grant does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity.

Laura Sue Durrenberger Smith, and Martha Durrenberger McKnight Plaintiffs v. Gary Booth, District Director, I.R.S., and · filed 1987-07-30

Section 1331's broad provision of federal question jurisdiction does not aid the plaintiffs, however, for that provision does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity.

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

LaChance v. Drug Enforcement Administration · filed 1987-08-24

Section 1331 of title 28 of the United States Code, ... which provides generally for federal question jurisdiction, cannot be construed as a waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States from suit.

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

Enos v. United States · filed 1987-11-10

While 28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants to the district court broad subject matter jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, it does not constitute a general waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not waive federal sovereign immunity for official-capacity monetary claims, although APA Section 702 waives immunity for qualifying nonmonetary Section 1331 actions.

Cousins v. Dole · filed 1987-11-18

The Court finds as a preliminary matter that Plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief against Defendant (in her official capacity) under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, should be dismissed under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Although actions for non-monetary relief under § 1331 no longer give rise to the defense of sovereign immunity, ... neither § 1331 nor § 1343 provide an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity for federal officials acting in their official capacity.

Section 1331 does not independently confer jurisdiction over a title claim against the United States when the statutes underlying that claim neither operate independently of the Quiet Title Act nor waive sovereign immunity.

Donnelly v. United States · filed 1988-03-10

The Donnellys urge that federal question jurisdiction be found under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, because their claims implicate 16 U.S.C. Sec. 818 (Sec. 24 of the FPA, authorizing withdrawal of lands from entry), 43 U.S.C. Sec. 161 (the Homestead Act, repealed 1976) and 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1601 (ANCSA). To the extent that these statutes go to the Donnellys' claim to title, they do not function independently of the QTA in the Donnellys' action, do not by themselves waive sovereign immunity, and therefore do not confer jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a federal agency is limited by sovereign immunity.

Oregon v. Bowen · filed 1988-03-28

This court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is limited by sovereign immunity.

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

Orange Ridge, Inc. v. State of Fla. · filed 1988-07-22

Third, while 28 U.S.C. § 1331 governs federal question jurisdiction, that provision, however, does not of itself waive the United States’ immunity.

Section 1331 grants jurisdiction over actions arising under federal law but does not itself waive the federal government's sovereign immunity.

Hollett v. Browning · filed 1988-11-30

Plaintiffs reliance upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to provide subject matter jurisdiction is misplaced. Section 1331 merely provides that the district courts shall have original jurisdiction in all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. Section 1331 cannot by itself be construed as constituting a waiver of the government’s defense of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity, so a plaintiff suing the United States must identify a waiver in the statute creating the cause of action.

California v. Bowen · filed 1989-03-03

While 28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants federal courts jurisdiction over actions “arising under” the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, the statute does not waive the federal government's sovereign immunity. ... Rather, plaintiff must look to the statute giving rise to a cause of action for such a waiver. ... Because section 1331 does not act as a waiver of sovereign immunity, a federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear a suit brought against the United States solely under this section.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over constitutional claims seeking nonmonetary relief against federal officials, while Administrative Procedure Act Section 702 separately waives sovereign immunity.

The Presbyterian Church (u.s.a.) v. The United States of America · filed 1989-04-13

At the outset, we note that the question is not whether § 702 creates jurisdiction for the churches’ claims. The churches properly invoke federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because their claims arise out of the Constitution. The relevant question is whether § 702 waives sovereign immunity for the churches’ non-monetary claims. We hold that it does.

Section 1331 may supplement federal jurisdiction only when a separate statute waives the United States' sovereign immunity.

Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. US, BUR. OF INDIAN AFF. · filed 1989-06-21

If another statute waives sovereign immunity, then § 1331 may provide a supplementary basis for federal jurisdiction.

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

Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc. v. William K. Reilly, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency · filed 1989-11-27

Section 1331 states that district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” However, it is well settled that section 1331 “implies no general waiver of sovereign immunity[ ],” and, therefore, cannot alone be relied upon as the basis of jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 supports a claim against the United States only when the well-pleaded complaint both requires construction of federal law and identifies a statute waiving sovereign immunity.

Metro. Sanitary Dist. of Greater Chicago v. United States · filed 1990-02-07

The United States first asks us to reconsider our ruling that we have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal courts have jurisdiction under that section to hear any claims that arise under federal law. ... We reiterate that in a suit against the United States, the jurisdictional allegations in the plaintiffs complaint must refer to a statute that waives the sovereign’s immunity. ... Plaintiff’s complaint can be resolved only by applying that section of the Clean Water Act, which also mandates that federal facilities comply with state regulations and also permits those regulations to be enforced against the government in court. We conclude that we have subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Daly v. Department of Energy · filed 1990-07-03

Plaintiff’s assertion that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity is without merit. ... Section 1331 implies no general waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself waive the federal government's sovereign immunity.

Leibowitz v. United States · filed 1990-08-31

The plaintiff-appellant has conceded that no such waiver was effected by the enactment of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985, and it is equally clear that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, the statute conferring federal question jurisdiction on the district courts, does not itself provide consent for the federal government to be sued.

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

Erickson v. United States · filed 1990-09-13

Plaintiffs identify several statutes that they assert operate to waive sovereign immunity as to this action: 5 U.S.C. ... § 7431; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1340, 1346, 1361, 2410, and 2463. These statutes, except for two discussed below, do not waive sovereign immunity for any of the Ericksons’ claims.

Section 1331 does not itself waive federal sovereign immunity and can support a suit against the United States only in conjunction with another statute supplying the necessary waiver and cause of action.

Lotz Realty Co. v. United States · filed 1990-10-19

The Federal Question statute provides no independent basis for jurisdiction and does not constitute, in itself, a waiver of sovereign immunity from suit. ... Thus, it would be useful to Lotz here only in conjunction with another statute.

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

Lonsdale v. United States · filed 1990-11-20

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

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

John C. Bleavins and Scherlyn K. Bleavins v. United States of America, and Donald J. Weber · filed 1990-12-20

Sovereign immunity is not waived by the provision of general jurisdiction statutes such as 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, addressing federal question jurisdiction, see Holloman v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 958 (1984), and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1340, addressing jurisdiction over actions arising under Acts of Congress providing for internal revenue, see Rodriguez v. United States, 629 F.Supp. 333, 337 (N.D.Ill.1986) (statutory grant of jurisdiction is not necessarily equivalent to waiver of sovereign immunity) Nor does 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2463 confer jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction over the United States absent its consent to suit.

Wilson v. United States · filed 1992-01-16

The court agrees with defendant that 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1346 are not proper grounds for jurisdiction over the United States in this case.

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

J.E.F.M. v. Holder · filed 2015-04-13

Plaintiffs have also pleaded that jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, ... but none of these statutes operates as a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331’s federal-question jurisdiction can be precluded by a more specific statute that bars review of the claims.

Viana v. President, United States, et al. · filed 2018-04-02

Accordingly, the court confines its analysis to whether the court has jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, to consider Viana’s claims and order the requested relief. ... However, jurisdiction conferred under this statute “can be precluded by another, more specific statute.” ... Accordingly, the court has no jurisdiction to review Viana’s claims or order the requested relief, and his complaint must therefore be dismissed.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a private claim when Congress creates the cause of action and specifically provides for jurisdiction elsewhere.

Compoli v. AVT CORP. · filed 2000-08-03

... that the general grant of federal question jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not apply where Congress, in creating a cause of action, specifically provides for jurisdiction elsewhere; and that the provision in this federal statute for exclusive state jurisdiction over private actions does not violate the Tenth Amendment. This Court concurs with the reasoning of federal courts of appeals which have considered the question and finds it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this private right of action claim brought under the TCPA.

Section 1331 cannot be used as an alternative to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's exclusive jurisdictional scheme to obtain a jury trial against a foreign state.

Harpalani v. Air India, Inc. · filed 1985-09-30

This court agrees with other courts which have addressed this argument that no such option exists. ... The conclusion is inescapable from the language of the statute that Congress meant section 1330 to be the exclusive means whereby a plaintiff may sue any foreign state as defined in section 1603(a).

Section 1331 did not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an FDIC receiver's suit involving only the state-law rights specified in 12 U.S.C. § 1819's exception.

Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. National Surety Corp. · filed 1972-08-15

Defendant, National Surety Corporation, removed the action to this Court invoking the Court’s diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under Title 28, U.S.C., Section 1332 and federal question jurisdiction under Title 12, U.S.C., Section 1819 and 28 U.S.C., Section 1331. ... The Court also finds no basis for federal question jurisdiction in this suit. ... The F.D. I.C. is suing in its capacity as Receiver of the Prairie City State Bank in this case to enforce the rights of depositors, creditors, stockholders, and such State bank under State law. This places the case within the meaning of that part of Title 12, U.S.C., Section 1819, limiting federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over federal Indian-tax claims within the federal-instrumentality exception to the Tax Injunction Act's jurisdictional bar.

Jack Moses, Puyallup Tribe v. George Kinnear, as Director of the Department of Revenue, State of Washington · filed 1974-01-09

We conclude that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over appellants’ claims, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1362, and that this jurisdiction is not defeated by 28 U.S.C. § 1341, since it falls within the instrumentality doctrine’s exception to the jurisdictional bar of § 1341.

Under former Section 1331, jurisdiction is unavailable when the plaintiff does not allege a $10,000 controversy and the general grant would add nothing to a controlling specific jurisdictional statute.

National Milk Producers Federation v. Shultz · filed 1974-03-13

Sections 1331 and 1332 are clearly inappropriate as a $10,000 controversy has not been alleged and as their availability would add nothing to the jurisdictional grant under § 1340.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction over a customs controversy that Congress committed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Customs Court.

Akins v. Saxbe · filed 1974-06-20

Plaintiffs argue that, even though 28 U.S.C. § 1340 denies to the District Courts jurisdiction over matters within the jurisdiction of the Customs Court, jurisdiction is properly in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337 and 1361. Clearly, however, none of these statutes provides this Court with subject matter jurisdiction of the present controversy.

Section 1331 jurisdiction cannot be defeated by a statute applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia because Section 1363 excludes such local laws from the relevant references to federal laws or Acts of Congress.

District of Columbia v. Ranger Construction Co. · filed 1974-12-31

Even if Congress had provided for statutory exceptions to the diversity jurisdiction under section 1331, any argument that D.C.Code § l-804b(b) is such a statute is precluded by 28 U.S.C. § 1363 (1970). Section 1363 directs that for purposes of Chapter 85 of Title 28, encompassing section 1331 and all other district court jurisdictional statutes, “references to laws of the United States or Acts of Congress do not include laws applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia.” Since sections l-804b(a) and l-804b(b) are applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia, these sections cannot defeat the original jurisdiction of the district court under section 1331.

Section 1331 cannot supply jurisdiction to remedy conduct arguably protected or prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act when labor-law preemption reserves the dispute to the NLRB.

No. 73--3221 · filed 1975-02-18

Plaintiff has cited, as the basis for jurisdiction, the following statutes: 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337; 29 U.S.C. §§ 185, 187. As to the former two, this court is of the opinion that it is barred from taking jurisdiction of this matter by the so-called preemption doctrine, explained at length in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775 (1959), and reaffirmed more recently in Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274, 91 S.Ct. 1909, 29 L.Ed.2d 473 (1971).

Section 1331 cannot supply jurisdiction to remedy conduct arguably protected or prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act when labor-law preemption reserves the dispute to the NLRB.

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Locals Nos. 70, 85, & 315, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs · filed 1975-02-18

Plaintiff has cited, as the basis for jurisdiction, the following statutes: 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337; 29 U.S.C. §§ 185, 187. ... As to the former two, this court is of the opinion that it is barred from taking jurisdiction of this matter by the so-called preemption doctrine, explained at length in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775 (1959), and reaffirmed more recently in Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274, 91 S.Ct. 1909, 29 L.Ed.2d 473 (1971).

Section 1331(a) supplies general jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law even when the scope of a more specific statutory enforcement provision need not be decided.

Prune Bargaining Ass'n v. Butz · filed 1975-05-21(a)

Whether Section 608a(6) is limited to only those enforcement actions brought by the Secretary is not a question that need be reached here, however, because jurisdiction arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), the general jurisdiction provision for matters arising under the laws of the United States.