28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 reaches a state-law contract claim when substantial federal issues predominate under the totality of the circumstances.

One & Ken Valley Housing Group v. Maine State Housing Authority · filed 2013-05-14

Based on the totality of the circumstances, we find that the federal ingredients of the case predominate.

Federal-question jurisdiction over a challenge to an arbitration award requires an independent federal claim or substantial federal issue; a connection to interstate commerce alone is insufficient.

Monica Ball v. Stylecraft Homes, LLC · filed 2014-04-03

Ball conflates the requirement of a nexus with commerce to invoke the FAA with the independent “federal question” requirement necessary to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

An agreement to arbitrate federal statutory claims does not deprive a court of federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Masoner v. Education Management Corp. · filed 2014-05-02

In other words, the existence of a valid contract compelling arbitration between the parties does not strip the court of its subject-matter jurisdiction. ... This court’s jurisdiction over Masoner’s claims will not be compromised if EDMC is able to show Masoner agreed to arbitrate her claims against EDMC; rather, if EDMC is able to show Masoner agreed to arbitrate her claims against EDMC, the court will dismiss Masoner’s action because EDMC will have meritoriously asserted a defense in this case.

Section 1331 permits a court to look through an action to enjoin arbitration to the underlying controversy and exercise federal-question jurisdiction when that controversy includes federal securities claims.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Golden Empire Schools Financing Authority · filed 2014-08-21

We discern no reason not to apply the logic of ... equally to actions to enjoin arbitration, so we conclude that subject-matter jurisdiction exists • both under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the arbitrations involve claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because the parties in each case are diverse and over $75,000 is at issue in the underlying arbitrations.

The Federal Arbitration Act does not itself create a federal cause of action or confer federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 for a motion to compel arbitration.

Estate of Johnson Clark v. Horwich · filed 2016-09-23

The district court properly denied Clark’s motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). “[T]he FAA does not itself confer jurisdiction on federal district courts over actions to compel arbitration or to confirm or vacate arbitration awards, nor does it create a federal cause of action giving rise to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” ... Having dismissed Clark’s RICO claim—his only basis for federal jurisdiction—the district court did not err by denying Clark’s motion to compel arbitration.

Section 1331 permits federal question jurisdiction over a post-arbitration FAA petition when the underlying arbitral claims arise under federal law.

UBS Financial Services Inc. v. Asociación de Empleados del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico · filed 2016-12-22

Vaden, this Circuit’s precedent, and decisions of this district all push towards the same conclusion: First Circuit courts look through a post-arbitration petition to the substance of the underlying dispute to determine subject-matter jurisdiction. Thus, when a party arbitrates federal law claims, there is an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over post-arbitration FAA petitions.

Section 1331 does not provide federal ingredient jurisdiction over state law claims that can be resolved without addressing a federal rule.

Galvin v. Scottrade, Inc. · filed 2018-08-16

Because a court can determine whether Scottrade violated its own policies or reasonably supervised its employees without assessing the DOL Fiduciary Rule, no federal issue is “necessarily raised”.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over motions to vacate or modify arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act when the underlying claim arises under federal law.

McCormick v. America Online, Inc. · filed 2018-11-29

Applying the approach we adopt herein, we conclude that the district court had federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the plaintiff’s underlying claim arose under federal law.

Section 1331 requires an independent basis for federal-question jurisdiction; a dispute governed by the Federal Arbitration Act does not supply one by itself.

Cavallaro v. Mendelsohn · filed 2019-05-09

However, the Federal Arbitration Act does not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction; instead, an independent jurisdictional basis is required.

An arbitration agreement does not divest a federal court of § 1331 jurisdiction over FLSA claims.

Guglielmo v. LG&M Holdings LLC · filed 2019-07-19

As a preliminary matter, Defendants have not provided any authority to support the contention that a valid arbitration agreement divests this Court of jurisdiction. ... Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims are federal law claims, which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a motion to compel arbitration under the FAA when the underlying dispute raises only state contract claims.

Lodmell v. LaFrance · filed 2019-09-16

Thus, under Vaden, the Court must have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s disputes with Defendants in order to have jurisdiction in this case. Based on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint, his claim does not raise questions of federal law. Construing Plaintiff’s Complaint liberally, his claims sound in state contract law and are thus not properly before the Court unless he adequately raises diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies no independent federal-question jurisdiction to enforce the Federal Arbitration Act; an independent jurisdictional basis is required.

Ramos v. FCA US LLC · filed 2020-02-20

The FAA “does not create any independent federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration only when the underlying dispute arises under federal law or necessarily raises a substantial federal issue.

Smith v. INTL FCStone Financial, Inc. · filed 2020-02-25

As stated previously, it is the underlying dispute that controls whether federal courts have jurisdiction, not the § 4 petition. ... Accordingly, as no diversity or federal question exists in the underlying dispute, the Court may not exercise jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction merely because a claim concerns the Federal Arbitration Act; the claim needs an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Cherdak v. American Arbitration Association Inc · filed 2020-03-09

Plaintiffs fail to acknowledge that the Federal Arbitration Act “does not create any independent federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or otherwise.” Southland Corp.v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 15, n.9 (1984); see also Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 25, n.32 (explaining that the Federal Arbitration Act requires “diversity of citizenship or some other independent basis for federal jurisdiction”).

The Federal Arbitration Act does not itself establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 for an action to enforce an arbitration award.

Carson v. Festiva Development Group, INC · filed 2020-09-24

To the extent Plaintiffs rely on the Federal Arbitration Act, that statute does not provide federal question jurisdiction over an action seeking to enforce an arbitration award.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an action solely because it seeks relief under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Stanley v. Hale · filed 2020-10-20

Because the Federal Arbitration Act does not create independent federal- question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and, further, because 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) does not permit removal where the defendant is a citizen of the state in which such action is brought, the Motion to Remand is sustained.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction solely because a claim invokes the Federal Arbitration Act.

Sanchez v. Trump · filed 2020-11-02

The FAA, however, “does not create any independent federal-question jurisdiction” under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over an arbitration award confirmation petition merely because the petition invokes the Federal Arbitration Act.

Akrabian v. West Coast Servicing, Inc. · filed 2021-03-17

Despite Petitioners’ references to the FAA in the Petitions they filed, those references are insufficient to establish that the Court possesses federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction to enforce an arbitration award merely because the Federal Arbitration Act applies.

Carson v. Festiva Development Group, INC · filed 2021-09-10

To the extent the plaintiffs rely on the Federal Arbitration Act, that statute does not provide federal question jurisdiction over an action seeking to enforce an arbitration award.

The Federal Arbitration Act alone does not provide federal-question jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award; an independent jurisdictional basis is required.

TCSS Environmental Technologies LLC v. Cavortex Technology International LLC · filed 2021-09-14

Accordingly, the FAA alone cannot serve as a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction for a motion to confirm an arbitration award merely because the Federal Arbitration Act supplies the substantive law.

Kahapea v. Hawaii State Federal Credit Union · filed 2021-09-20

The FAA “creates federal substantive law requiring the parties to honor arbitration agreements, [but] it does not create any independent federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976) or otherwise.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction to enforce an arbitration award solely under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Carson v. Festiva Development Group, INC · filed 2021-09-28

The Federal Arbitration Act does not create independent federal- question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over an action seeking to enforce an arbitration award.

Section 1331 requires a federal question independent of the Federal Arbitration Act to support jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration.

Whispering Pines West Condominium Association, Inc v. Great American Insurance Company of New York · filed 2021-10-05

Petitioner has identified no federal-question that could provide a jurisdictional basis under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to enforce a subpoena under the Federal Arbitration Act when the Act is the only asserted federal basis.

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC v. Cresset Asset Management, LLC · filed 2021-12-15

Because the FAA by itself does not confer federal-question jurisdiction, and because J.P. Morgan alleges no other basis for federal-question jurisdiction, that form of jurisdiction does not apply.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 does not arise solely because the Federal Arbitration Act governs an arbitration.

Rifkind v. Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC · filed 2022-01-31

Accordingly, the fact that the arbitration underlying this lawsuit is governed by the FAA is insufficient on its own to create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction solely because a party invokes the Federal Arbitration Act to confirm an arbitration award.

Malone v. Toyota Motor Sales · filed 2022-02-22

Accordingly, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 through the invocation of the FAA.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to confirm an arbitration award when the complaint presents no federal question.

LEO v. THOMAS NEWARA, NEWARNICK CONSTRUCTION · filed 2022-04-27

Here, upon reviewing the face of Leo’s Complaint, it is plainly evident that the parties are both Pennsylvanians and the amount of their dispute is well below $75,000.00 such that diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) does not exist, nor is there federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction solely because a proceeding arises under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Schottenstein v. J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC · filed 2022-05-09

The FAA does not create independent federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 jurisdiction requires a federal-law claim; merely invoking federal jurisdiction without facts supporting such a claim is insufficient.

Ochei v. Verizon New York, Inc. · filed 2022-10-24

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law wage claims when they are not preempted by federal law.

Macias v. Mission Linen Supply · filed 2023-02-10

Accordingly, Plaintiff and the putative class are not exempted employees under Labor Code Sections 514 and 512, and their claims are not preempted by the LMRA. The Court thus does not have federal question subject matter jurisdiction over the overtime and meal and rest period claims in this case.

Section 1331 requires a basis for federal question jurisdiction independent of a claim to vacate an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act.

(PS) Sanai v. Cobrae · filed 2023-04-20

Third, the magistrate judge correctly found the court lacks federal question jurisdiction. ... As the magistrate judge notes, “plaintiff’s only claim based on federal law is the ground seeking to vacate the result of the arbitration under the FAA [Federal Arbitration Act], which does not independently confer jurisdiction.” ... Plaintiff has not established an independent basis for federal question jurisdiction here.

The Federal Arbitration Act does not independently create federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

RHINO SERVICES, LLC v. DEANGELO BROTHERS, INC. · filed 2023-08-11

However, the FAA does not independently create federal question jurisdiction. ... Thus, the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to diversity jurisdiction under §1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction merely because a dispute may involve arbitration under the FAA; an independent basis for federal jurisdiction is required.

Garveykcvn Holdings LLC v. Killgore · filed 2023-08-23

“However, the FAA does not itself confer jurisdiction on federal district courts over actions to compel arbitration or to confirm or vacate arbitration awards, […] nor does it create a federal cause of action giving rise to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” United States v. Park Place Assocs., Ltd., 563 F.3d 907, 918 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). ... Accordingly, Defendants cannot rely on the potential issue of arbitrability to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a motion to vacate an arbitration award based on federal issues in the underlying dispute; the court assesses jurisdiction from the motion itself.

Clark v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. · filed 2024-03-26

The Court cannot consider those arguments, however, because to do so, the Court would have to look through the Motion to Vacate to the underlying dispute. ... Thus, no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 exists here.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction over an FAA Section 9 application that identifies no non-FAA basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Tommy White v. TitleMax of Virginia, Inc. · filed 2024-05-01

The applications did not identify a non-FAA basis for federal question ... jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an FAA vacatur petition when the petition itself states a federal claim.

Baptist Memorial HealthCare Corporation v. CIGNA Health Care of Tennessee · filed 2024-08-26

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts are authorized to exercise original jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Taken together, Cigna’s manifest disregard of the law challenge states a federal claim arising under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3).8 Thus, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a § 1983 suit, which the court retains to confirm an arbitration award after ordering arbitration and staying the suit.

Blake v. JPay · filed 2024-10-23

Thus, the Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when ordering the arbitration and staying this suit and retains jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to confirm the arbitration award.

Section 1331 does not provide independent federal-question jurisdiction merely because the Federal Arbitration Act may govern a dispute.

LEVIN v. Silverberg · filed 2024-10-23

Second, even if the contract dispute in this case is governed by the arbitration clause in the Property Settlement Agreement, as suggested in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and/or to Compel Arbitration (Doc. No. 2), the Federal Arbitration Act “does not create any independent federal- question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or otherwise.” Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 26, (1983).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction solely because a party seeks relief under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Johnson, M.D. v. Johnson · filed 2024-11-08

The FAA, therefore, cannot alone provide the jurisdictional foundation for entertaining this litigation.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim solely because the contract references the Federal Arbitration Act.

Lutley v. Noland Health Services Inc · filed 2025-01-02

Therefore, the fact that a contract references the Federal Arbitration Act does not turn a breach of contract claim into a federal question.

Section 1331 gives a court jurisdiction over a petition to vacate an arbitration award when the petition itself presents a federal claim; a federal issue in the underlying arbitration does not suffice.

Nader v. Latham & Watkins · filed 2025-02-18

In determining whether a petition to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 or 10 of the FAA raises a federal question for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Supreme Court has made clear that courts should not “‘look through’ the petition to the ‘underlying substantive controversy’ between the parties.” ... Rather, in those cases, the courts must review the petition itself to determine whether “it alleges that federal law (beyond Section 9 or 10 itself) entitles the applicant to relief;” if so, “[28 U.S.C.] § 1331 gives the court federal-question jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that Nader has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that the Court has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not permit a court considering a petition to vacate an arbitration award to look through to the underlying federal claim for federal-question jurisdiction.

WINSCHER v. DAVISON · filed 2025-02-19

Under Badgerow, the district court here cannot “look-through” the complaint to the AIPA to reach federal question subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; rather, the dispute, which seeks to vacate an arbitral award arising from a contractually required arbitration must independently satisfy another basis for jurisdiction, e.g., diversity jurisdiction, or the action belongs in state court.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a petition to confirm an arbitration award when no federal basis for jurisdiction over the petition is identified.

AKF Inc. v. Skybell Technologies Inc. · filed 2025-03-24

Respondents assert in the Notice of Removal that jurisdiction is proper pursuant to both 28 U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1332(a) (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 5, 16), but point to no federal statute that would provide for jurisdiction of the Petition as filed in state court.

Section 1331 jurisdiction established by a federal claim remains available when the parties return after arbitration for further relief.

PRICE · filed 2025-12-30

The jurisdiction of the court was established with the federal question presented in the complaint. The court had pendent jurisdiction over plaintiff's concomitant state law claim under the PHRA. The case was stayed during the pendency of the arbitration. The stay was lifted when the parties returned from arbitration and both parties relied on that jurisdiction in seeking post-arbitration relief pursuant to the FAA.

Section 1331 requires a basis for federal-question jurisdiction independent of a request for relief under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Muhammad · filed 2026-01-28

But as established in Park Place, the FAA does not create federal question jurisdiction. There must be an independent basis for federal question jurisdiction, but the FAC does not assert any claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Federal-question jurisdiction based on the original complaint continues after arbitration even if the federal claim is later found meritless or is not presented to the arbitrator.

Jackson v. Notre Dame Federal Credit Union · filed 2026-05-13

In looking to the complaint, the court originally maintained jurisdiction under a federal question, see 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 257 (2013), a necessary underpinning with likely nondiverse parties, see StarNet Ins. v. Notre Dame Fed. Credit Union, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15370, 4-8 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 24, 2025).1 ... The court doesn’t lose jurisdiction merely because the federal claim was conceded or not presented.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to vacate an arbitration award merely because the petition arises under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Technologists, Inc. v. Mir's Ltd. · filed 2010-07-27

Although Moses H. Cone did not involve a petition to vacate an arbitral award brought under § 10 of the FAA, the D.C. Circuit has made clear that the FAA does not confer federal question jurisdiction over motions to vacate.

Section 1331(a) does not provide jurisdiction over federal agencies merely because their agents might be personally liable for constitutional violations.

American Association of Commodity Traders v. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service and United States of A · filed 1979-05-31(a)

Appellant’s final argument would have us find jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) following the theory of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). The most telling problem with this theory is that no agents of the federal government are parties to this suit, and even if they were, their presence would not affect our jurisdiction over defendant agencies of the United States.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over a contract claim merely because the defendant raises a federal antitrust defense.

NATIONAL CIGARETTE SERV. CO., INC. v. Farr · filed 1979-04-19

Nor is there diversity of citizenship, nor any other federal question presented so as to accord the federal courts subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976); 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1976). Furthermore, in order to require removal, the basis of the federal court's jurisdiction must be disclosed in plaintiff's complaint, unaided by anticipated defenses or counterclaims.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction over claims concerning duties created by the ISO tariff when 16 U.S.C. § 825p supplies exclusive jurisdiction.

T & E Pastorino Nursery v. Duke Energy Trading & Marketing, L.L.C. · filed 2003-05-19

Jurisdiction lies here not under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but under 16 U.S.C. § 825p, which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the federal courts over claims concerning duties created by the ISO tariff.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when a federal defense is the only asserted federal issue.

Leroy v. Hume · filed 2023-04-13

Accordingly, no federal issue is necessarily raised, so Defendants’ argument fails at the first step of the analysis.

A patently meritless assertion that an arbitrator manifestly disregarded federal law cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Northland Truss System, Inc. v. Henning Construction Co. · filed 2011-09-07

Northland’s assertion of § 1331 jurisdiction, however, would still fail were the Court to consider it on its merits. ... The Eighth Circuit has, however, stated that even if a manifest disregard claim were tenable, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction would be appropriate if the claim were patently meritless. ... Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction over either of Northland’s claims under § 1331.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to vacate an arbitration award alleging that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded federal law.

Luong v. Circuit City Stores, Inc. · filed 2004-05-25

He argues that the allegation of manifest disregard of federal law raises a federal question. We agree that it does, and that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Luong’s petition.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to vacate an arbitration award when the petitioner principally and in good faith alleges manifest disregard of federal law.

Greenberg v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., and Bear, Stearns Securities Corp. · filed 2000-08-07

We hold that where, as here, the petitioner complains principally and in good faith that the award was rendered in manifest disregard of federal law, a substantial federal question is presented and the federal courts have jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over an FAA petition to compel arbitration when looking through the petition reveals a potential coercive claim that presents a federal issue.

Community State Bank v. Strong · filed 2011-08-25

Under the look-through rule, this hypothetical coercive claim in turn supplies a basis for federal jurisdiction over the Bank’s FAA petition.

Section 1331 can provide jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration under FAA § 4 when the underlying dispute presents a properly invoked federal question.

Discover Bank v. Vaden · filed 2005-01-24

We thus decline to eliminate § 1331 as a possible basis for federal juris- diction over a petition to compel arbitration under § 4 of the FAA.

Section 1331 can provide jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act when the underlying dispute presents a properly invoked federal question.

Discover Bank Discover Financial Services, Incorporated v. Vaden · filed 2005-01-24

A federal court may therefore hear a § 4 petition to compel arbitration if, but for the arbitration agreement, subject matter jurisdiction over the case would otherwise exist by virtue of a properly invoked federal question in the underlying dispute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration merely because the underlying claim raises a federal question.

U.S. Bank National Ass'n ND v. Strand · filed 2002-09-19

This court concludes that based on the great weight of authority, it has no federal jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration simply because the underlying claim raises a federal question.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory action seeking to avoid arbitration when the underlying arbitration claims arise under federal law.

Kiely v. Canty · filed 2015-04-30

In actions such as this one where the complaint seeks a declaratory judgment, the proper inquiry is to look at the action the declaratory judgment defendant could have brought to obtain the same result the Plaintiff seeks to avoid, and to ask whether federal question jurisdiction would have been present had he done so. ... Applied here, it is plain that the complaint arises under federal law whether the complaint is viewed as a request for declaratory relief or as a motion to enjoin the arbitration. ... Because there is no question that the arbitration claims explicitly allege violations of various federal laws, it necessarily follows that this Court would have had jurisdiction over this matter had it originally been broüght here. I find, therefore, that the Court does have jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims under sections 2 and 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act merely because federal issues arise in the underlying controversy.

Habliston v. Finra Dispute Resolution, Inc. · filed 2017-05-08

Therefore, there is no merit in plaintiffs’ position that challenging the enforcement of the arbitration agreements, or seeking to appoint new arbitrators, pursuant to provisions of the FAA, would create federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration based solely on the Federal Arbitration Act.

Bi-Lo LLC v. Parker · filed 2020-06-29

The FAA, alone, does not supply jurisdiction to the court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because, although it is federal law, “it does not create any independent federal-question jurisdiction.” Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp., 460 U.S. at 25 n.32. Thus, the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over petitions to vacate or confirm an arbitration award when neither petition presents a federal question.

Wynston Hill Capital, LLC v. Crane · filed 2022-09-16

Accordingly, because the FAA does not itself confer subject matter jurisdiction, and neither the Petition nor Cross-Petition contains a federal question within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court can exercise jurisdiction over this case only if the parties satisfy the diversity jurisdiction requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration when the underlying controversy alleges only a state-law contract breach, with no independent federal claim.

Alta Waterford LLC v. Onassis Holdings Corp. · filed 2023-02-28

Thus, this Court lacks federal-question jurisdiction over the petition, as alleged.

Section 1331 does not permit a court to look through a state-law petition to compel arbitration to find federal-question jurisdiction based on the underlying claim.

Amescua v. Peacock TV LLC · filed 2024-01-02

Thus because Petitioners chose to bring their Petition under California state law and did not move to compel arbitration under FAA § 4, the Supreme Court’s authorization to ‘look through’ a Petition to an underlying federal claim does not apply.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration when the underlying dispute presents a potential federal statutory claim, even if the arbitration demand does not name the statute.

LifeVoxel.AI Inc. v. Mamillapalli · filed 2024-03-29

The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied its burden of establishing this Court’s federal question jurisdiction. ... In addition, the Supreme Court has held that, in the context of petitions to compel arbitration brought pursuant to § 4, a court may “look through” to the underlying action between the parties (here, the arbitration) in order to ascertain whether the Court would have jurisdiction over the “substantive conflict” between the parties. ... In light of these broad standards and the allegations of the arbitration demand filed by Plaintiff, which address a purported misappropriation of confidential information, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently invoked the DTSA for purposes of establishing its jurisdiction to rule on the petition to compel arbitration.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration when the underlying dispute presents only state-law claims.

Chadwick v. TNAL Motors LLC · filed 2024-09-03

So the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 4, does not create a federal question that vests jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration merely because the Federal Arbitration Act is a federal statute.

Beets v. T-Mobile US Inc · filed 2025-09-08

That is to say, although the FAA is a federal statute, it does not provide a district court with freestanding federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over an FAA claim on its own.

Complot · filed 2025-10-31

A claim arising under the FAA, however, cannot establish federal question jurisdiction on its own.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-court case when a federal claim was raised only in arbitration and never added to the state-court complaint.

Chase v. Kia Motors America, Inc. · filed 2023-02-24

Because Plaintiffs have never amended their complaint to assert a federal claim before the Superior Court, see Conn Decl. ¶ 7, this case never implicated federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and never became removable on that basis... and not when the Superior Court granted that motion.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to confirm or vacate an arbitration award based solely on federal claims in the underlying arbitration; a federal question must appear on the petition’s face.

Malkin v. Shasha · filed 2023-04-20

Generally, subject matter jurisdiction can be established by showing that the parties are diverse or the case presents a question of federal law. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). The face of the petition here does neither. There is no diversity jurisdiction in this matter, which the parties do not contest. Nor does the petition raise a federal question. A petition to vacate or confirm an arbitration award raises a dispute about “the enforceability of an arbitral award,” which is “no more than a contractual resolution of the parties’ dispute.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award based solely on a private arbitration agreement that neither creates a federal claim nor requires resolution of a federal question.

Nelson v. Walzl · filed 2020-10-09

The problem for Nelson is that his arbitration agreement is neither a law that creates a claim for relief nor a mechanism providing relief that depends on resolving a federal question.

Section 1331 requires an independent federal question apparent on the face of a complaint to confirm or vacate an arbitration award; the Federal Arbitration Act alone does not supply jurisdiction.

Virgin Islands Housing Authority v. Coastal General Construction Services Corp. · filed 1994-06-24(a)

Prudential-Bache thus emphasizes that not only must federal jurisdiction exist aside from the Arbitration Act, but the independent basis must appear on the face of the complaint. ... The record in the case at hand establishes that neither of the complaints filed by the Housing Authority and Coastal contain allegations sufficient under the well-pleaded complaint rule to support a finding of a substantial federal question. On that basis alone, the District Court lacked jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a contract dispute seeking to enforce an arbitration award when the complaint presents no independent federal question.

New Hope Baptist Church v. Design Building Interiors, Inc. · filed 1992-04-09

Plaintiffs cannot, on the basis of the Complaint, establish such an independent basis of federal jurisdiction. First, there is no federal question within the confines of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in this contract dispute.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award merely because the proceeding invokes the Federal Arbitration Act; an independent basis for federal jurisdiction is required.

Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance v. California Reinsurance Management Corp. · filed 1993-04-20

Based on the foregoing authorities, the Court holds that a party seeking to confirm an arbitration award in federal district court pursuant to Section 9 of the FAA must first establish a separate basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. There being no basis asserted here for federal jurisdiction other than the FAA, the case must be remanded.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction merely because a party seeks to confirm an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Mauldin v. MBNA America Bank, N.A. · filed 2008-10-30

But the FAA does not create federal-court jurisdiction where it does not otherwise exist: The Arbitration Act is something of an anomaly in the field of federal-court jurisdiction. It creates a body of federal substantive law establishing and regulating the duty to honor an agreement to arbitrate, yet it does not create any independent federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976 ed., Supp. IV) or otherwise. ... Mauldin does not assert an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over MBNA’s confirmation petition, and none appears of record. We therefore overrule his fourth issue.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a petition to vacate an arbitration award arising from a contractual dispute when the petition alleges only procedural and evidentiary errors and no manifest disregard of federal law.

Giusti v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC · filed 2014-10-14

Here, the underlying dispute was contractual in nature. Likewise, Giusti’s petition to vacate merely alleges procedural and evidentiary errors, but does not claim that the panel acted in “manifest disregard of federal law.” ... Giusti therefore failed to establish that his right to relief “necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction over an action to confirm a labor arbitration award under the LMRA despite a contractual provision selecting state law.

Unite Here Local 19 v. Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians · filed 2015-03-31

But this Court has original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the laws of the United States. ... Because the LMRA is a federal law, this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction by way of federal question jurisdiction. ... The accuracy of that statement, however, does not divest this Court of subject-matter jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not give a federal court jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award merely because the arbitration involved federal issues or proceeded under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Hawaii Medical Services Association v. Nitta, M.D. · filed 2019-06-07

Thus, Defendant’s reliance on the FAA and the mere presence of federal issues in the underlying arbitration for federal question jurisdiction is without merit.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction to vacate an arbitration award when the underlying allegations present no federal claim.

Ghahhari v. JetBlue Airways Corporation · filed 2019-09-27

The substance of Plaintiff’s underlying allegations does not demonstrate a federal claim. Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants violated any federal law when JetBlue terminated his employment, and the substance of his complaint does not otherwise suggest a cause of action falling under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Because Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants violated his rights under federal law, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over his claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award based solely on the Federal Arbitration Act or a federal claim raised in the arbitration.

Hale v. Stanley · filed 2020-03-13

Because “neither the FAA nor the underlying arbitrated claim provide an independent basis of federal jurisdiction in an action to confirm or vacate an arbitration award,” the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a pleaded federal cause of action or a substantial federal question; an FAA award-confirmation petition needs an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Andrew v. Walzl · filed 2020-04-23

Petitioner does not allege facts demonstrating that federal law creates the cause of action or that his right to relief depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Accordingly, Petitioner does not appear to have met his burden to establish federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over an arbitration-award confirmation motion merely because the arbitrated claims involve federal law; the court looks to the law giving rise to the arbitration agreement.

Williams v. Smith · filed 2020-11-13

However, it is not the underlying substantive claims purportedly resolved by the arbitration that are determinative for the subject-matter jurisdiction analysis, but the nature of the laws giving rise to the contract to arbitrate. ... Williams has not offered any basis for the Court to concluded that the (purported) arbitration agreement arose under federal law. Accordingly, Williams has not established “arising under” federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to confirm an arbitration award when the contractual rights at issue are governed by federal ERISA law and the petition seeks recovery under federal law.

The Trustees of the New York State Nurses Association Pension Plan v. White Oak Global Advisors, LLC · filed 2022-06-20

Since it seeks recovery exclusively under the laws of the United States and does not implicate 28 U.S.C. § 1331’s exceptions, the Court is obliged to hear the suit.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to confirm an arbitration award solely because the underlying dispute involved federal law.

Reineri v. International Business Machines Corporation · filed 2022-06-28

Here, although the underlying controversy between Reineri and IBM presented a federal question within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 – whether IBM violated the ADEA – Reineri's petition in this Court does not.

Section 1331 requires an independent basis for federal-question jurisdiction over an application to confirm or vacate an arbitration award; a federal claim in the underlying arbitration is insufficient.

Wallenberg v. Utah · filed 2023-12-14

In other words, it is immaterial whether the arbitrated dispute arose from a federal cause of action or a state cause of action; unless there is a wholly independent basis for jurisdiction, the application to confirm or vacate the arbitration award belongs in state court.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to confirm a § 9 arbitration award when the application identifies no federal question outside the FAA.

Holder v. TitleMax of Virginia, Inc. · filed 2024-05-01

The applications did not identify a non-FAA basis for federal question ... jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award merely because the underlying dispute involved federal law; the application must present an independent federal question.

Hursh v. DST Systems, Inc · filed 2022-11-28

Although the arbitration awards at issue were based upon breach of DST’s fiduciary duties under ERISA, without a look-through to this underlying ERISA controversy that is foreclosed by Badgerow, Plaintiffs’ Section 9 applications only concern “the contractual rights provided in the arbitration agreement, generally governed by state law.” Badgerow, 142 S. Ct. at 1321. If that were enough to establish an “independent basis” for federal question jurisdiction, this Grable exception would swallow the Badgerow rule.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award merely because the underlying claims arose under federal law; the confirmation suit needs its own basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

O'LEARY v. Fanghella · filed 1994-11-02

And even though part (though not all) of the underlying claims that had originally been submitted to arbitration invoked the federal securities laws, the essential lesson of Kokkonen is that once arbitration proceedings have been reduced to a money award, the suit for ... enforcement of the award involves nothing more than the equivalent of a contract claim.

A provision limiting supplemental unemployment compensation did not supersede the district court’s federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Hill v. Cantrell · filed 1985-08-08

For reasons adequately stated by the Magistraté, we conclude that by enacting section 602(d)(2) Congress did not intend to supercede federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982) and, therefore, that this case is properly before ús.

A complaint alleging that federal officers acted illegally beyond their statutory authority sufficiently invokes Section 1331 jurisdiction pending a merits determination.

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers of the U. S. ARMY · filed 1971-01-21(a)

For the time being, however, the complaint adequately avers proper bases for the jurisdiction of this Court, both over the named defendants and of the subject matter.

A pre-induction challenge must establish both Section 1331 jurisdiction and an exception to the Selective Service Act's restriction on judicial review.

McLain v. Selective Service Local Board No. 47, Etc. · filed 1971-03-30

It is clear that the petitioner for preinduction injunctive relief must establish ... both ... (1) jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or some other general jurisdictional statute, and (2) judicial power to deal with the claim prior to induction under the exception to Section 10(b) (3).

Section 1331 jurisdiction was available despite the Selective Service Act's pre-enforcement review bar when Selective Service blatantly violated its own clear regulation.

Horey v. Dr. Curtis Tarr, National Director of Selective Service · filed 1972-12-15

After unsuccessful appeals to Mead-er and to Dr. Tarr, National Director of Selective Service, Horey commenced this action in the Western District of New York, alleging jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. §§ 1331, 2201 and seeking ... a declaration that former Local Board Memoranda Nos. 64 and 98 were null, void and of no legal effect. ... As Selective Service violated its own regulations, the courts do have jurisdiction despite the provision of § 10(b)(3).

A statute barring jurisdiction over claims it extinguished did not eliminate independent jurisdiction under § 1331 over surviving claims concerning federal officers' pre-enactment actions.

Edwardsen v. Morton · filed 1973-04-19

Finally, the Court finds no merit in the contention that Section 2(f) of the Settlement Act indicates that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. ... The plaintiffs have not alleged jurisdiction on the basis of that Act. Among the jurisdictional grounds they do allege are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1362. Nothing in Section 2(f) of the Settlement Act would clearly destroy these independent sources of jurisdiction, and the presumption is always in favor of judicial review.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction to review Medicare agency action when the Medicare Act provides no review procedure, because § 405(h)'s restrictions then do not apply.

Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center v. Richardson · filed 1973-10-15

Rather, our decision in ... stands for the proposition that, because of considerations of due process, ... of the restraints on judicial action included in section 405(h) are inapplicable where the Medicare Act provides no procedure for judicial review. Consequently, we find jurisdiction to hear Kingsbrook’s claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not create district-court jurisdiction to review an agency decision when the governing statute expressly makes its own remedy exclusive and commits the decision to agency discretion.

Von Clemm v. Banuelos · filed 1973-11-08

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1361, and under 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704 and 706. ... A reading of the Trading with the Enemy Act establishes the proposition that both of the two grounds which forbid judicial review of agency action are contained in that Act. ... Consequently, this Court rules that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of the plaintiffs in this case and that the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, must be allowed.

Section 405(h)'s prohibition on actions under former Section 41 of Title 28 includes Section 1331 because federal-question jurisdiction was formerly codified in Section 41(1).

Mount Sinai Hospital of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Weinberger · filed 1974-02-06

The provision in Title "28 for federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1970), was formerly contained in Section 41(1) of that title, and is therefore included within the prohibition of Section 205(h).

Section 405(h)'s bar on Section 1331 actions was construed as codifying administrative exhaustion and therefore does not preclude a constitutional benefits challenge when exhaustion would be futile.

Salfi v. Weinberger · filed 1974-03-22

Defendants also contend this action is barred by the provision of 42 U. S.C. § 405(h) that “No action against the United States, the Secretary [of HEW], or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under [28 U.S. C. § 1331] to recover on any claim arising under this subchapter.” We think this provision was intended to do no more than codify the doctrine requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies, and therefore that it is inapplicable to this action for the reasons already stated.

Section 1331 permits a district court to hear a collateral procedural-due-process attack on deportation proceedings, although direct review of a final deportation order belongs exclusively in the courts of appeals.

Haidar v. Coomey · filed 1974-12-06

Since it is clear that exclusive jurisdiction for review of a final order of deportation is vested by statute solely in the courts of appeal, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a, this court may not consider plaintiff’s due process claim, if that claim is in the form of appeal from a final order of deportation. ... But plaintiff’s action does not seek review of a final order of deportation. Rather, it is in the nature of a collateral attack on the proceedings, an attack which goes behind the hearing and challenges the underlying procedures. A federal district court has jurisdiction to consider such a collateral attack. ... and may properly consider, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, plaintiff’s claim that he was denied procedural due process at the deportation hearing.

Section 1331 permits collateral review of a military judgment, including post-conviction relief for a former servicemember not in custody, because the UCMJ does not bar non-habeas forms of relief.

Avrech v. The Secretary of the Navy · filed 1975-09-26

Most recently the Supreme Court has resolved this jurisdictional issue in appellant’s favor. ... the Court held that Article 76 of the UCMJ did not bar a suit in the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to enjoin a court-martial. In addition, it noted that Article 76 cannot be ... read as barring all forms of relief beside habeas corpus. We view ... as the more difficult jurisdictional case ... and are confident that there is jurisdiction to consider an action seeking post-conviction relief.

The McCarran Amendment did not eliminate federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331 over a federal water-rights suit.

Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · filed 1976-03-24

The District Court also would have had jurisdiction of this suit under the general federal-question jurisdiction of 28 U. S. C. § 1331. For the same reasons, the McCarran Amendment did not affect jurisdiction under § 1331 either.

Section 1331(a) is jurisdictional rather than remedial and cannot supplement the Privacy Act with injunctive relief that Congress omitted from the Act's express remedies.

Parks v. United States Internal Revenue Service · filed 1980-03-27(a)

It is further argued by the plaintiffs that injunctive relief should be available under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (the federal-question jurisdictional provision of the Judicial Code). This is not a remedial provision and hence it cannot be employed to supplement the Privacy Act. This action arises under the Privacy Act and hence plaintiffs are limited to the express remedies provided by the Act.

Section 1331(a) does not authorize district-court review of the Secretary of the Interior’s final and conclusive determination of Indian heirship under 25 U.S.C. § 372.

Carr v. Andrus · filed 1980-10-10(a)

It is asserted that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... Once the Secretary of Interior has made a determination of heir-ship under 25 U.S.C. § 372, it is final and conclusive. The federal courts have no jurisdiction to review such a decision determining heirship to the restricted estate of an Indian. ... In view of the foregoing, it appears that this Court is without jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by Plaintiff.

Section 1331 permits review of a constitutional or statutory-authority challenge to Veterans Administration procedures despite the veterans-benefits statute's bar on review of individual benefits decisions.

Arnolds v. Veterans' Administration · filed 1981-02-10

Jurisdiction is asserted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1346, 1361, 2201 and 5 U.S.C. § 702. ... it is clear that the section 211(a) bar on judicial review of the decisions of the Veterans Administrator does not extend to preclude review of the procedures employed by the Administrator that are alleged to be in conflict with his statutory authority.

Section 1331 does not overcome a federal statute expressly precluding judicial review of Veterans Administration benefits decisions.

Barry v. United States · filed 1981-08-19

A strongly worded preclusion of review statute has for years barred judicial review of the type of agency decision which plaintiff is calling into question. ... Accordingly, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not lie.

Section 2735’s finality provision precludes Section 1331 jurisdiction to review the Secretary of the Army’s settlement of a Military Claims Act claim.

Labash v. United States Department of the Army · filed 1982-01-13

There also is no basis for federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... jurisdiction conferred on federal courts to review agency action by § 1331 is subject to any “preclusion of review statutes created or retained by Congress.” ... As we have noted, § 2735 is just such a statute.

Section 1331 permits review of agency action unless another law makes that action unreviewable, including the APA's exception for action committed to agency discretion.

Merrill Ditch-Liners, Inc. v. Pablo · filed 1982-02-26

The district court has subject matter jurisdiction to review agency action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) if the action is not otherwise made unreviewable. ... The Administrative Procedure Act, however, precludes review of “agency action committed to agency discretion by law.”

Section 1331 jurisdiction is determined from the complaint’s allegations, and a claim that federal procedures conflict with federal statutory and constitutional provisions arises under federal law.

Beauchesne v. Nimmo · filed 1983-04-11

Whether a suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States is determined from the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint. ... Here, the plaintiff has alleged that the procedures followed by the defendants conflict with both statutory and constitutional provisions. The Court finds that it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and is not precluded from exercising that jurisdiction by 38 U.S.C. § 211(a).

Section 1331 is subject to congressional preclusion-of-review statutes and cannot support review barred by the Military Claims Act.

Broadnax v. United States Army. Leola M. Broadnax v. U.S. Army Hospital Nuremberg · filed 1983-06-24

Finally, the third possible basis for jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976), is inapplicable. The Supreme Court has held that § 1331, which gives the district courts original jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, is subject to any “preclusion or review statutes created or retained by Congress.”

Section 1331 permits a federal challenge to the validity of federal benefit guidelines notwithstanding a statute routing ordinary individual benefit determinations through state review.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers v. Donovan · filed 1983-07-28

Here, plaintiffs allege that the guidelines themselves are invalid; they do not contest the particulars of the application of the guidelines to the facts of individual cases. In such circumstances, section 2311(d) of ... the Act does not divest this Court of jurisdiction. ... Plaintiffs assert jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Because it is determined that plaintiffs’ claims fall within this Court’s general federal question jurisdiction, the propriety of invoking jurisdiction under these additional statutes need not be addressed.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a Social Security claim barred by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).

Hennings v. Heckler · filed 1985-01-31

We begin by noting that such a jurisdictional basis cannot be found in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1346, ... or in the Administrative Procedure Act.

General and specific federal jurisdictional grants, including § 1331, do not override the statutory restriction requiring claims against an FSLIC receiver to proceed first through the administrative process.

Baer v. Abel · filed 1986-03-21

Second, nothing in the cited jurisdictional provisions contradicts the express limitations of jurisdiction contained in 12 U.S.C. § 1464(d)(6)(C), which specifies that “no court may ... restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of ... a receiver.” ... When § 1730(k)(l) is construed within the larger statutory framework governing receiverships and federal savings and loan associations, it is evident that Congress has established an administrative process for the liquidation of failed associations in which all claims must first be presented to FSLIC as receiver.

Section 1331 does not override a clear congressional bar to judicial review of federal agency decisions, including FECA’s bar on review of the Secretary of Labor’s compensation decisions.

Staacke v. United States Secretary of Labor · filed 1988-03-02

The federal courts have jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Because this suit arises under FECA, appellant argues that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. But section 1331 does not automatically confer jurisdiction in all cases involving federal statutes. ... The language is clear and its meaning unmistakable: Federal courts have no jurisdiction to review final judgments of the Secretary of Labor and his officers in these statutory matters, regardless of whether other, more general, statutes might seem to grant such jurisdiction.

A statute may expressly preclude Section 1331 jurisdiction over pre-enforcement constitutional challenges while preserving later judicial review through specified enforcement or reimbursement actions.

South MacOmb Disposal Authority v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · filed 1988-03-11

The provision explicitly states that federal courts shall not have jurisdiction to review “any challenge” except for those enumerated. Second, the provision precludes the use of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction, as a grounds for subject matter jurisdiction.

A claimant has no vested right to Section 1331 jurisdiction, and Congress may withdraw previously available district-court jurisdiction by requiring arbitration through a later statute.

Beardsly v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co. · filed 1988-06-15

The appellants also contend that during the interim period between the date RITEA became law on May 30, 1980, and the date the right of first hire became subject to arbitration on August 13, 1983, the Rock Island employees had a vested right to bring an action in federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 that could not be eliminated by a later amendment of the law. We disagree. ... Clearly, jurisdiction was withdrawn in the present case by the amendment of 45 U.S.C. § 797c(g).

CERCLA Section 113(h) generally bars Section 1331 pre-enforcement challenges, including constitutional challenges, but cannot foreclose a present due-process challenge to a federal lien when delayed review leaves no judicial forum.

Reardon v. United States · filed 1990-02-06

By implication, this section specifically bars any federal court from asserting federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 which would include possible constitutional challenges. ... In light of this particular circumstance, the limitations on Congress’ powers to describe federal jurisdiction dictate that section 113(h) not limit this Court’s authority to review the Reardons’ constitutional claim. ... This Court must retain jurisdiction of this case for the limited purpose of reviewing section 107(Z) for procedural due process infirmities.

Although NEPA claims are presumptively reviewable under Section 1331 together with the APA, that jurisdiction is unavailable when another federal statute specifically precludes judicial review at the current stage.

Schalk v. Reilly · filed 1990-04-24

While NEPA claims are presumptively reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in conjunction with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 702, APA review is not available when a federal statute specifically precludes judicial review. ... The district court thus lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims brought under the APA.

Although NEPA claims are presumptively reviewable under Section 1331 together with the APA, jurisdiction is unavailable when another federal statute specifically precludes judicial review at the current stage.

Schalk v. Reilly · filed 1990-05-30

While NEPA claims are presumptively reviewable under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 in conjunction with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 702, APA review is not available when a federal statute specifically precludes judicial review. ... The district court thus lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims brought under the APA.

Section 1331 permits judicial review of a legal challenge to a Military Claims Act settlement unless Congress supplied clear and convincing evidence that the Act’s finality provision precludes judicial review.

Rodrigue v. United States · filed 1991-02-25

The plaintiff alleges jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Military Claims Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2731 et seq. The United States Supreme Court has held that 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives district courts jurisdiction of “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” is subject to “preclusion-of-review statutes created or retained by Congress.” ... After examining the statutory language and the legislative history of § 2735, I conclude that there is no “clear and convincing” evidence that Congress intended to preclude all judicial review of administrative settlements of claims. ... For the reasons stated above, I conclude that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim.

Section 1331 does not overcome the Tax Anti-Injunction Act merely because a taxpayer characterizes the assessment as violating constitutional rights.

Stone v. United States · filed 1975-12-02

Plaintiffs allege jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C., sections 1331, 1340 and 1346(a)(2). ... Plaintiffs’ attempt to hold on to jurisdiction by bootstrapping this claim to one of denial of due process of law under the Fifth Amendment and violation of their rights against unlawful seizure is equally unavailing. The Supreme Court has stated that “decisions of this Court make it unmistakably clear that the constitutional nature of a taxpayer’s claim, as distinct from its probability of success, is of no consequence under the Anti-Injunction Act.” ... The complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 cannot overcome the Tax Injunction Act's complete jurisdictional bar to federal injunctive relief against state tax collection when a plain, speedy, and efficient state remedy exists.

Coon v. Teasdale · filed 1977-12-21

Jurisdiction was alleged under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201 and 2202. ... Notwithstanding this contention, we are compelled to affirm the district court’s ruling that § 1341 provides a complete jurisdictional bar to plaintiffs’ prayer for injunctive relief.

Section 1331(a) does not avoid the Tax Injunction Act's jurisdictional bar for a semi-autonomous tribal enterprise that is not entitled to the statutory coplaintiff exception available to a tribe.

Navajo Tribal Utility Authority v. Arizona Department Of Revenue · filed 1979-10-26(a)

Thus, the abrogation of the federal-instrumentality doctrine, and the Supreme Court's heavy reliance in Moe upon section 1362, within the purview of which NTUA does not come, leave the federal courts without jurisdiction of this action pursuant to section 1331(a) or section 1343(3).

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction over a taxpayer's request to compel the IRS to disclose information from a criminal investigation.

Rhodes v. United States of America · filed 1980-06-04

In accordance with our opinion in ... we find that the district court lacked jurisdiction, and remand for dismissal.

Section 1331 reaches a well-pleaded federal statutory claim to enjoin state taxation, but the Tax Injunction Act divests that jurisdiction when an adequate state remedy exists.

Arizona v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad · filed 1981-06-12

This case would ... satisfy the requirements of federal jurisdiction under section 1331 because it would arise under section 306. ... Thus, even though the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint would bring the case within federal question jurisdiction, section 1341 would divest the federal courts of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to federal Social Security legislation when the Anti-Injunction and Declaratory Judgment Acts do not bar the action.

Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment v. Heckler · filed 1985-05-29

This action therefore is not barred by the Anti Injunction or Declaratory Judgment Acts. ... The court finds that subject matter jurisdiction over these actions is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction).

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to a federal-court tax order is not defeated by the Tax Injunction Act when the Supremacy Clause leaves no adequate state-court remedy.

Pennell v. Collector of Revenue · filed 1989-01-25

Nonetheless, the supremacy clause prohibits any state court from reaching the merits of plaintiffs’ constitutional attack on Judge Clark’s Order. Accordingly, there does not exist any adequate state remedy as is required by the Tax Injunction Act or the principle of comity and this Court is not deprived of the jurisdiction vested by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. Therefore, the Court must conclude that removal of plaintiffs’ Count II is proper.

The Tax Injunction Act bars otherwise possible Section 1331 jurisdiction over a challenge to state taxation when state courts provide a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy.

Hardwick v. Cuomo · filed 1989-12-19

Absent the Tax Injunction Act, the district court conceivably could have exercised federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or, because of the alleged violation of appellants' civil rights, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(a)(3) and (4), and the appellees concede as much. ... Thus, we hold that the Tax Injunction Act bars this action by the legislators if the taxpayers have a plain, speedy and efficient remedy in the courts of New York under state law.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a federal challenge to a local tax is barred by the Tax Injunction Act and comity when state courts provide a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy.

Cox Cable Hampton Roads, Inc. v. City of Norfolk · filed 1990-07-09

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, defendant removed this action to this court stating as its grounds for removal that Counts III, IV, and V state causes of action involving federal questions over which this court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and that Counts I, II, VI, and VII assert state law claims over which this court has pendent jurisdiction. ... For the reasons stated herein, this court finds that because Virginia offers the parties to this action a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy in her courts, this court lacks jurisdiction over Counts III, IV, and V. The Tax Injunction Act as well as the Supreme Court and circuit court authorities cited herein require that Counts III, IV, and V be remanded.

Section 1331 does not permit a taxpayer to enjoin federal tax assessment or collection when the Anti-Injunction Act bars the suit and no statutory or judicial exception applies.

Blackstock v. Internal Revenue Service · filed 1991-03-14

He brings this suit to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief alleging jurisdiction under various criminal statutes, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 2410(a), and under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 556(d) and 702. Specifically, plaintiff, acting without counsel, seeks to enjoin the IRS from executing on a tax levy. ... None of the statutes upon which plaintiff bases his claim for relief are listed in § 7421(a). Unless plaintiff’s claim is authorized by one of the statutes listed in § 7421(a), this case cannot proceed in this court.

Section 1331 is a general grant of federal question jurisdiction that does not give TVA franchises special access to federal court to avoid the Tax Injunction Act.

North Georgia Electric Membership Corp. v. City of Calhoun · filed 1992-01-02

In contrast, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is a general grant of federal question jurisdiction to the federal district court. The statute falls short of expressing a congressional intent that the franchises of TVA be given enhanced access to federal court.

Section 1331 does not override the Anti-Injunction Act’s specific jurisdictional bar to a taxpayer’s suit, even when the claim arises under the Constitution.

Pagonis v. United States · filed 2009-08-11

Section 1331(a), however, does not override the more specific jurisdictional limitations in 26 U.S.C. § 7421. The constitutional nature of a claim does not allow a taxpayer to avoid the jurisdictional bar of the Anti-Injunction Act.

Section 1331 does not supply general federal jurisdiction for private Clean Water Act claims outside the Act’s citizen suit provision.

Board of Trustees of Painesville Township Mayridge Construction Company v. City of Painesville, Ohio · filed 1999-12-29

Like the panel in Walls, we conclude that the Supreme Court held in Sea CHammers that there is no general federal jurisdiction outside § 1365 and that Congress did not intend to imply private remedies in addition to those expressly provided in the CWA’s citizen suit statute.

Section 1331 cannot be used to prosecute a claim based solely on a violation of the Clean Water Act when the claimant fails the Act’s citizen-suit requirements; the savings clause preserves only independent rights.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Callaway · filed 1974-12-13

These alleged violations of the Water Pollution Control Act may not be complained of under some other jurisdictional head ... U.S.C. § 1331 (1970) ... Thus, subsection (e) apparently was not intended to allow violations of the Act to be prosecuted, except as they create some rights independent of the Act, other than under the jurisdictional grant of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365 (Supp. II, 1972).

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act's citizen-suit provision is not the exclusive jurisdictional basis for enforcing the Act, and Section 1331 can independently supply jurisdiction.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and the State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant v. Howard H. Callaway, as Secre · filed 1975-09-09

The jurisdiction found to exist under § 1331 for NEPA purposes also exists for FWPCA purposes.

Section 1331(a) may independently support jurisdiction over Federal Water Pollution Control Act claims despite noncompliance with the Act's sixty-day notice provision because the citizen-suit savings clause preserves other statutory remedies.

Township of Long Beach v. City of New York · filed 1978-01-24(a)

A number of cases supporting plaintiff’s position hold that compliance with the notice provision of the FWPCA is not the exclusive way in which a suit based on alleged violations of the FWPCA can be properly brought before the Court. These cases hold that jurisdiction over the subject matter can be obtained if jurisdiction is alleged to arise under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... I concur with the reasoning of the Second and District of Columbia Circuits and find that plaintiff has properly grounded jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 does not independently provide jurisdiction for a citizen suit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act that fails to satisfy the Act’s own mandatory notice requirements.

South Carolina Wildlife Federation v. Alexander · filed 1978-07-27

This Court does not agree with the position adopted by plaintiffs that this “saving clause” provides this Court with jurisdiction under § 1331. If a suit is brought under the provisions of the FWPCA, it must meet the requirements of that Act. ... Finally, it would have been unnecessary for Congress to have passed § 505 if § 1331 had provided the relief sought.

When a statutory citizen-suit provision is not exclusive, plaintiffs may proceed under Section 1331 without giving the notice required for a statutory citizen suit.

Libby Rod & Gun Club v. Poteat · filed 1978-09-28

This citizen suit section is not an exclusive remedy under the Act. ... Consequently, plaintiffs have the right to bring this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 without giving prior notice to the Secretary of the Interior.

An injured private party may combine the Federal Water Pollution Control Act's savings clause with Section 1331 as an alternative basis for suit outside the Act's citizen-suit notice procedure.

National Sea Clammers Ass'n v. City of New York · filed 1980-02-05

A private party who is injured by the alleged violation, as these plaintiffs allege they were, has an alternate basis for suit under section 505(e), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(e), and the general federal question jurisdiction of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976).

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to review a state-issued NPDES permit when the challenge requires interpretation of federal Clean Water Act requirements.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. v. Virginia State Water Control Board · filed 1980-07-29

Plaintiffs contend that the issuance of the HREC permit violated the Act’s requirements in several respects. The allegations would thus necessitate an interpretation of a federal statute which is the heart of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A private Clean Air Act damages claim that neither involves federal common law of interstate pollution nor authorizes private damages does not arise under federal law for Section 1331 purposes.

Gardeski v. Colonial Sand & Stone Co., Inc. · filed 1980-11-24

Plaintiffs also assert that violations of federal common law and statutes give rise to federal question jurisdiction of Part II of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs claim for money damages does not, however, arise under any federal law. This is not a case involving the federal common law of interstate pollution. ... Moreover, damages do not appear to be available to private litigants who sue under the Clean Air Act.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over actions to prevent federal transportation projects from proceeding in violation of federal environmental law.

College Gardens Civic Ass'n v. U. S. Department of Transportation · filed 1981-08-28

There is little doubt about the jurisdiction of this Court over any roadway projects to which the provisions of NEPA are found applicable. The action of any defendant which would further a project that is subject to the provisions of federal law is a matter in controversy arising under the laws of the United States and federal jurisdiction over such action is essential to preserve federal question jurisdiction in the application of federal statutes.

The FWPCA citizen-suit saving clause does not create a separate enforcement action under Section 1331(a), because the Act's elaborate enforcement system preempts private federal-common-law remedies.

Love v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation · filed 1981-12-17(a)

Plaintiff argues that this section preserves a citizen’s rights to sue under federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, to seek enforcement of FWPCA provisions. The Supreme Court, however, has come to a different conclusion. ... It does not, however, create a separate grounds for enforcement of the FWPCA. Accordingly, plaintiff’s purported bases for jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) are invalid.

Section 1331 cannot be used to enforce the Clean Water Act because Congress limited federal-court access to the Act’s express enforcement provisions.

City of Las Vegas v. Clark County · filed 1984-12-11

This precludes suits brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1331 cannot provide alternative jurisdiction through a takings claim that the district court dismissed and the plaintiff did not appeal when the Clean Air Act supplies another review route.

Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. v. Lee Thomas, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency · filed 1989-08-04

CENEX claims that even if citizen suit jurisdiction was lacking in this case, alternative grounds for the district court’s jurisdiction exist, namely 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because CENEX alleged a takings claim in its complaint, and 28 U.S.C. § 1361. We disagree. ... Nor can the district court’s jurisdiction rest on CENEX’s takings claim. The district court expressly dismissed “those claims for relief sought by CENEX in its complaint that do not appear in or were not otherwise addressed” by the magistrate. CENEX’s claim was not addressed by the magistrate, and CENEX did not appeal this portion of the district court’s decision. Thus the district court clearly based its jurisdiction on the citizen suit provision alone.

The Clean Water Act's express enforcement scheme precludes an independent remedy under Section 1331, and the Act's savings clause does not create an implied private action.

Fiscella & Fiscella v. United States · filed 1989-08-10

concluded that Congress intended to limit access to federal court to enforce the CWA to the express enforcement provisions of the Act which precludes suit brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Therefore, even if plaintiff had alleged a cause of action under Section 1365(e), it would not provide this Court with subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court finds that the enforcement provisions of the CWA do not provide plaintiffs in the instant case with a cause of action, nor does the CWA afford plaintiffs an implied right of action.

Merely invoking constitutional and federal statutory provisions does not establish Section 1331 jurisdiction when the factual allegations implicate only state law.

Kavouras v. Fernandez-Powers · filed 1991-03-14

Mere intonation of constitutional and federal statutory provisions is insufficient to invoke jurisdiction where, as here, the actions alleged do not implicate those provisions.

A request for a federal court to regrade a state bar examination presents no federal question under Section 1331(a) when it alleges only honest error, negligence, or unavoidable mistake.

Solomon Feldman, Jr. v. State Board of Law Examiners · filed 1971-03-03(a)

As to plaintiff’s third contention centering around claimed honest errors of judgment, negligence or unavoidable mistake, there is authority that such are not generally within the purview of the Civil Rights Act, Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944), and normally would form no basis for relief here. It seems clear to us however that in any event and apart from such a concept, no federal question is involved in this case within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.§ 1331(a).