28 U.S.C. § 1331

A state-law breach-of-contract claim does not arise under federal law for Section 1331(a) merely because the plaintiff conclusorily characterizes the conduct as violating due process or equal protection.

No. 25703 · filed 1971-03-09(a)

Nor is the action one which “arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States” and hence within the purview of 28 U. S.C. § 1331(a). To the contrary (and despite plaintiff's conclusionary characterization of defendants' acts as violative of due process and equal protection, etc.) the claim is simply one for breach of contract, the charge being that the defendant school district refused to perform certain obligations imposed upon it under a teaching contract entered into with plaintiff.

A state-law breach-of-contract claim does not arise under federal law for Section 1331(a) merely because the plaintiff conclusorily characterizes the conduct as violating due process or equal protection.

Adelt v. Richmond School District · filed 1971-03-09(a)

Nor is the action one which “arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States” and hence within the purview of 28 U. S.C. § 1331(a). To the contrary (and despite plaintiff’s conclusionary characterization of defendants’ acts as viola-tive of due process and equal protection, etc.) the claim is simply one for breach of contract, the charge being that the defendant school district refused to perform certain obligations imposed upon it under a teaching contract entered into with plaintiff.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an interstate-nuisance action governed entirely by state law.

Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp. · filed 1971-03-23

Nor would federal question jurisdiction exist under 28 U. S. C. § 1331. So far as it ... appears from the present record, an action such as this, if otherwise cognizable in federal district court, would have to be adjudicated under state law.

A complaint stating a claim under the National Environmental Policy Act presents substantial federal questions within Section 1331(a).

CAPE MAY CTY. CHAP., INC., IZAAK WALTON LEAG. v. MacChia · filed 1971-06-16(a)

Accordingly, it is the . conclusion of this Court that the plaintiff has adequate legal standing to maintain this action; that the complaint states a sufficient cause of action cognizable under the ... NEPA ... and related ... Acts; ... and that substantial federal questions are presented.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a local employment-contract dispute merely because the agreement concerns information that may be protected under federal patent or copyright law.

Miller v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation · filed 1971-10-22

The employment contract in question restricts Mr. Miller’s right to disclose certain matters after his employment terminates, but the present dispute is not transformed into a federal question under Article 1, § 8, clause 8, United States Constitution, simply because the agreement foreclosed the employee from ventilating certain company information. ... Whether the employment agreement in question is overly-restrietive or otherwise unenforceable, it remains a local contract dispute as distinguished from a claim which “arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim merely because a permit cancellation is characterized as violating federal constitutional rights.

Contemporary Music Group, Inc. v. Chicago Park District · filed 1972-01-19

Having examined the complaint with all appropriate benevolence, it is this court’s conclusion that the cancellation of this permit, under the circumstances alleged, created no federal claim. ... It clearly follows that what has been presented here is a possible cause of action for breach of contract, and that as such it belongs in the state and not the federal court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state's regulation of the privilege to practice law because that privilege is not granted by federal law.

West Virginia State Bar v. Bostic · filed 1972-06-14

Sherman’s contention that the action presents a federal rather than a state question is likewise untenable. The practice of law is not a right or privilege granted by the Constitution and laws of the United States. ... Thus, federal jurisdiction in this matter may not be invoked on the theory that it raises substantial federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal jurisdiction over ordinary local-election irregularities merely because plaintiffs characterize the counting of unlawful ballots as a deprivation of civil rights.

Pettengill v. Putnam County R-1 School District, Unionville, Missouri · filed 1973-02-12

According to appellants, the complaint alleges facts actionable under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, with federal jurisdiction resting either upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343, the jurisdictional counterpart to § 1983, or upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which authorizes federal jurisdiction for civil actions of a requisite amount arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... We reject this theory. ... Accordingly, we find no basis for federal intervention in this local election dispute and we affirm the judgment of dismissal by the district court.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when a shareholder derivative complaint states no federal claim.

Raese v. Kelly · filed 1973-06-11

Since the complaint fails to state a federal question, jurisdiction, if any, must depend on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction over a count that asserts only that a local ordinance is inapplicable and presents no federal constitutional or statutory claim.

Helmsley v. Borough of Fort Lee · filed 1973-08-07

The Third Count, as has been indicated previously ... asserts no constitutional or federal statutory claim, but merely asserts that the ordinance does not apply to plaintiffs. ... Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is lacking, though pendent jurisdiction might, upon proper showing, and in the exercise of this Court’s discretion, preserve this count for final determination.

An attorney-fee action arises under federal law for Section 1331 purposes when it is a remedial incident to claims under federal securities statutes, even if some fee defendants did not violate those statutes.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,150 Oliver R. Grace v. Ludwig · filed 1973-09-12

This argument would be persuasive except that the plaintiffs also urge that the federal court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 which grants jurisdiction where the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 and “arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” We think that this action for fees and expenses does arise under the stated substantive sections of the Investment Company Act and Securities Exchange Act. Even though the minority stockholder defendants did not violate the sections, it is alleged that they bene-fitted from the LLB representation.

Section 1331(a) does not confer jurisdiction over a right created only by state law and not protected or guaranteed by federal law or the Constitution.

Cole v. Tuttle · filed 1973-11-27(a)

Plaintiff’s right, if any he in fact has, to seek the performance of the duties imposed upon the Board of Supervisors by Section 19-5-1 is not such a right as could be characterized as arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States so as to give this court jurisdiction of the action sub judice under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). The rights, if any, are not protected or guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or any amendment thereto.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when the operative facts show a state-law dispute and the purported federal claim is insubstantial and asserted only for jurisdictional purposes.

Fanning v. School Board of Independent School District 23 · filed 1975-05-08

Therefore, the Court views this from a reading of the totality of the operative facts and allegations as a case arising under state law. ... There is no substantiality to the claim which is made only for jurisdictional purposes.

A basic contract dispute does not arise under federal law for Section 1331(a) merely because the parties invoke federal statutes, federal regulations, HUD forms, or HUD's status as mortgage insurer.

Trans-Bay Engineers & Builders, Inc. v. Lynn · filed 1975-05-20(a)

A threshold matter to be considered is the jurisdiction of this Court over the action. Since the case at its core concerns matters of contract, there is no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), nor is 28 U.S.C. § 1337 applicable, providing for jurisdiction over proceedings arising under Acts regulating commerce. The fact that sections of the National Housing Act and the implementing regulations thereof are invoked by the parties does not transform a basic contract dispute into an action “aris[ing] under the . . . laws ... of the United States.” ... Nor can HUD-prepared forms or HUD’s status as mortgage insurer serve to confer jurisdiction upon this Court.

Invoking provisions of a federal statute or its implementing regulations does not by itself transform a contract action into one arising under federal law for § 1331 jurisdiction.

American Fidelity Fire Insurance v. Construcciones Werl, Inc. · filed 1975-11-26

Quite clearly, there is no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The fact that sections of the National Housing Act or its implementary regulations are invoked by the parties does not magically transform this action into one arising under the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over claims that a state violated its own law, even when federal law required the state to enact safeguards of that kind.

Reyes v. Edmunds · filed 1976-07-27

In holding that there was no jurisdiction under § 1331, Judge Larson, when recently confronted with this identical problem, noted that “[ejven though creation of this State law [the Privacy Act] was mandated by Congress . . . violation of the State law is a matter of State concern and raises no Federal question.” ... Therefore, the court does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to resolve the state law claims raised in the complaint.

A federal regulation can create Section 1331 jurisdiction only when the claim presents a significant issue concerning the regulation's construction, validity, or interpretation; using a regulatory violation merely as evidence of common-law negligence does not suffice.

Suggs v. C. W. Transport, Inc. · filed 1976-09-21

Although an administrative regulation which has the force of law may give rise to federal question jurisdiction, ... the claim must present a significant question respecting the construction, validity, or interpretation of the law. ... The basis for Suggs’ claim, however, is in common law negligence. The violation of the regulation, if proved, would only be evidence of breach of Transport’s duty of care. And this court has no jurisdiction to decide a negligence claim against a private defendant absent diversity of citizenship.

Adding Section 1331 as a jurisdictional citation does not create federal jurisdiction when the federal statutory theories fail and the complaint alleges only conclusory constitutional deprivations.

Phillips v. Fisher · filed 1977-10-12

The only change proposed by the amendment is to add 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a jurisdictional basis for this action. Plaintiffs state that this statute grants us jurisdiction because this lawsuit invokes interpretations of federal statutes and of the Constitution. The only federal statutes involved are the Civil Rights Acts, and those have already been discussed and rejected as a basis for plaintiffs’ claims. ... Plaintiffs’ attempt to transform state court litigation into federal civil rights causes of action via conclusory allegations will fail.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to enforce a private settlement of federal litigation when the resulting contract claim is governed by state law.

Fairfax Countywide Citizens Ass'n v. County of Fairfax · filed 1978-03-06

Association's contract claim did not arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The settlement agreement between Association and County, while serving to terminate litigation of a federal claim, was a private contract entered into after private negotiations between the parties. Both its validity and the interpretation of its terms are governed by Virginia law.

Federal regulation of an industry does not make every state-law contract dispute arise under federal law for Section 1331 purposes.

Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co. · filed 1978-03-16

The present case involves a contract dispute. The fact that the parties to this dispute happen to be railroad common carriers is immaterial. The defendant has failed to meet its burden of proving that federal legislation has preempted the field of basic contract law in this area or serves as a basis for the right sought to be enforced by the plaintiff. ... The suit, filed in the state courts of Illinois, is one calling for the application of common law principles of contracts. This fact is not changed by the fact that both parties to the dispute are railroad common carriers.

A state-law libel claim against a private newspaper does not present a federal question under Section 1331(a).

Burrascano v. United States Attorney General · filed 1978-03-23(a)

In his “reply affidavit,” Burrascano alleges jurisdiction over ... on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). As to the former statute, it is clear that no federal question is raised by this aspect of Burrascano’s lawsuit.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction when none of the complaint's allegations state a federal claim.

Sommer v. Rankin · filed 1978-04-24

None of the allegations in the complaint state a federal claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim merely because federal statutes and regulations govern aspects of the contract.

Westland Oil Development Corp. v. Summit Transportation Co. · filed 1979-08-21(a)

Numerous cases make clear that 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 do not provide for federal jurisdiction over what otherwise appear to be state common law claims. ... Plaintiff cannot maintain this breach of contract action in federal court simply because federal statutes and regulations may have applied to the contract at issue here. Since it is apparent from the face of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint that this action does not arise under federal law, or require the interpretation of any federal law to resolve these common law claims, the Amended Complaint is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1).

The presence of a former bankruptcy trustee as a party does not by itself create federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331.

A. Musto Co., Inc. v. Satran · filed 1979-09-27

The Court’s federal question jurisdiction is also inapplicable. The fact that a former trustee in bankruptcy is a party does not give rise to a federal question.

Section 1331(a) does not provide jurisdiction over state-law constitutional, nuisance, or third-party-beneficiary claims when federal law is merely tangential rather than central to the claim.

Noe v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority · filed 1980-03-04(a)

Plaintiff has also alleged jurisdiction because her claims “arise under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). This jurisdictional allegation cannot apply to the claimed violation of the state constitution or to creation of a nuisance. Plaintiff’s remaining claim is as a third party beneficiary of contracts which allegedly promise compliance with the EIS. Plaintiff’s status as a third party beneficiary is a matter of state law; federal law is not central to the claim but merely tangential. ... No “arising under” jurisdiction exists for this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal jurisdiction over a purely state-law dispute merely because the plaintiff faces irreparable harm.

Aladdin Hotel Corporation, and Josephine Alexander D/B/A Hairem Beauty and Barber Shop, Plaintiffs- Intervenors v. Nevad · filed 1980-06-05

However, while irreparable harm is a prerequisite to the issuance of injunctive relief, it alone does not confer federal jurisdiction to hear questions of state law absent a specific grant of federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not cover claims grounded solely in state fiduciary law merely because a federal labor statute is peripherally implicated.

Don Lee Bass and Jerome Clarence Fernandez, Cross v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Etc., Local No. 582, Cro · filed 1980-11-17

These are clearly state claims, and are not founded upon federal law. Absent any basis for federal jurisdiction, a state court might entertain that action. ... For these reasons and because no assertion of pendent jurisdiction appears in the complaint, we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction of the claims against SCAAC either under Section 186(e) directly or as questions arising under a federal law.

Section 1331 does not reach a state-law malpractice claim merely because federal nursing-home regulations may bear collaterally on the standard of reasonable care; federal law must be a direct element of the claim.

Woods v. Lake Drive Nursing Home, Inc. · filed 1980-12-10

The dispute over federal regulations regarding standards for nursing home facilities is at most a collateral dispute which would reflect upon the reasonableness of the care provided to the decedent. This tangential federal aspect of plaintiffs’ claim falls far short of the requirement for federal jurisdiction that the ... federal law be a direct element of the plaintiffs’ claim and, therefore, this Court declines to assert jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal claim apparent on the complaint's face; a military-enlistment contract dispute governed by ordinary contract principles does not arise under federal law merely because federal statutes authorized the contract.

Karlin v. Clayton · filed 1981-02-06

To bring a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a plaintiff must have a substantial claim founded directly on federal law. ... These military enlistment contracts were also made under the authority of federal statutes and regulations, but did not require the construction of such statutes or regulations or the application of federal legal principles. The Court finds that this complaint states a cause of action in contract and that it does not present a substantial federal question. ... The Court finds that plaintiff has not established the existence of a substantial federal question to allow this Court to exercise jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only state-law torts and no facts giving rise to a federal constitutional or statutory question.

Londoff Bowling Lanes v. Landmark North Cty. Bank · filed 1981-05-21

Plaintiff has alleged no facts which this Court can construe as giving rise to a federal question — violation of Constitution or federal statute — instead merely asserting a variety of wrongs which might better be characterized as civil torts cognizable in state court. Plaintiffs have failed to show jurisdiction is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

State-law contract remedies do not arise under Section 1331(a) merely because resolving the dispute may involve federal regulations or a federal agency handbook.

Jemo Associates, Inc. v. Greene Metropolitan Housing Authority · filed 1981-09-14(a)

The general federal question statute grants to federal district courts original jurisdiction in actions “arising under the . . . laws ... of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). Plaintiffs essentially allege a breach of contract against HUD and GMHA, claims which would usually be governed by state law and would not present a federal question. ... These elements, however, form too tenuous a relationship to federal law upon which to ground federal jurisdiction. ... The remedies the plaintiffs seek are created by state law, are not expressly granted by federal statutes or regulations, do not require interpretation of a federal statute, and are not part of a distinctive federal policy regarding the housing laws.

Under Section 1331(a), federal standards that are merely relevant or collateral to state common-law claims do not satisfy the “arising under” requirement.

Hayes v. National Con-Serv, Inc. · filed 1981-09-22(a)

In support of its petition for removal, defendant asserts that this case is one in which this federal district court has “original jurisdiction” ... because this case “arises under” the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ... as those words are used ... in 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... Those claims do not rest upon ERISA or any federal statute or any federal regulation. Rather those claims are grounded in the common law. ERISA’s statutory and regulatory standards may well be relevant and material ... but the determination of those matters are collateral, not central ... The mere involvement of ERISA does not necessarily mean that the “arising under” test is met.

Section 1331 cannot be invoked through bare constitutional allegations to obtain federal adjudication of an essentially state-law dispute; the complaint must raise a substantial federal question.

Cellermaster Wines, Inc. v. Chastain · filed 1982-01-25

Nevertheless, bare allegations of a constitutional deprivation cannot be used to invoke the federal court’s jurisdiction to decide a fundamentally state law question. The test is whether the complaint raises a “substantial federal question.”

Section 1331 did not support jurisdiction where the complaint failed to state a claim under the federal banking or securities statutes it invoked.

Golar v. Daniels & Bell, Inc. · filed 1982-02-19

Plaintiff’s amended complaint has two purported bases for subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff alleges violation of the National Bank Act, specifically 12 U.S.C. §§ 24, 51b(a) and 71, and violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b). The complaint fails, however, to state a claim for relief under any of these sections of our federal banking and security laws. ... This case is remanded to the state court because of the failure to state a federal claim.

A constitutional allegation made solely to obtain jurisdiction does not establish § 1331 jurisdiction unless it asserts a substantial, nonfrivolous constitutional interest.

Equitable Trust Company v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission · filed 1982-03-03

The only inquiry on appeal is whether Equitable has demonstrated a substantial, nonfrivolous interest in a constitutionally cognizable property protected under the fifth amendment or is merely cloaking its old ... theories for jurisdiction in constitutional garb. ... demonstrates that the constitutional allegations here are mere verbiage, “made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction.”

State-law claims do not arise under § 1331 merely because a plaintiff makes vague constitutional references outside a complaint that identifies no federal right or statute.

Wilson v. Moss · filed 1982-04-05

Beyond the bare assertion, in paragraph one of the Complaint, that the Court has jurisdiction under, ... § 1331, there is no reference either to any Constitutional provision, or to any statute of the United States, in the first three causes of action. Moreover, although Plaintiff has made vague references in his memorandum to the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments ... he has failed to furnish any basis; either by reference to the allegations in the Complaint, or by citation of legal authority, upon which this Court could conclude that he is asserting rights protected by, or arising from the Constitution.

Section 1331 does not cover claims created and governed by state law when no construction of federal law can alter the parties’ rights.

Chamberlain Livestock Auction, Inc. v. Aberdeen Production Credit Ass'n (In Re Chamberlain Livestock Auction, Inc.) · filed 1982-09-02

The law that creates plaintiff’s action for conversion, that validates Aberdeen Production Credit Association’s security interest or determines Bellman Farms’ liability, is state law. No construction of federal law will alter those rights.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a private contract dispute when no federal question is alleged.

Professional Construction Consultants, Inc. v. Grimes · filed 1982-09-28

As the dispute arises out of an alleged breach of a private contract, no federal question jurisdiction is alleged under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law challenge to a copyright assignment when the claim raises no substantive issue of federal law.

Dolch v. United California Bank, a Corporation and Catherine D. McAndrew · filed 1983-03-22

It follows from these principles that Marguerite’s claim of invalidity for lack of consideration also rests entirely on state law. Her failure to raise a substantive federal law claim also defeats jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies no subject-matter jurisdiction when a complaint fails to state any claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Baker v. Data Dynamics, Inc. · filed 1983-04-15

Finally, plaintiffs attempt to invoke the court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. However, as will be discussed below, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the federal mail fraud and wire fraud statutes, federal securities laws or federal civil rights laws, all alluded to in passing in the complaint. Nor have plaintiffs stated any other claim for relief arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. There is, then, no other basis for the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction by this court.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over contract claims when the pleadings allege no facts showing that the right to relief depends on construing or applying federal law.

Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company v. Pargas, Inc. v. Union Tank Car Co., Third Party · filed 1983-06-06

We find no commerce-clause or other federal question in this case, and the pleadings set out no facts- that would lead us to believe that there is one. No part of this case “arises under” federal law within the meaning of either section 1337 or 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Supp. V 1981). Even the most liberal of the various tests that the Supreme Court has used to determine the statutory meaning of “arising under”— whether the complaint shows “that the right to relief depends upon the construction or application of the Constitution or laws of the United States”- — is not satisfied in this case.

Legal-malpractice and contract claims against retained attorneys do not arise under Section 1331 merely because they are characterized as constitutional violations.

Schlomann v. Daniel T. Ramsdell and John H. Wright · filed 1983-11-01

His complaint in substance alleges malpractice and breach of contract, neither of which are actions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff states no cognizable federal claim and only independent state-law claims remain.

Warfield v. Adams · filed 1984-03-05

Because it is the conclusion of this court that plaintiff has stated no cognizable federal claims which would vest this court with federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (and, concomitantly, under the civil rights portion, 28 U.S.C. § 1343), and there is an absence of any independent jurisdictional bases for the remaining state law claims, the putative federal claims advanced in the first three counts will be addressed first.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction where references to federal regulations do not raise a substantial issue of federal law and the claims are purely state-law claims.

Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. Huff · filed 1986-04-02

The court, in viewing plaintiffs amended complaint, cannot find that plaintiffs reference to federal regulations in support of its claim against Mr. Huff raises a substantial issue of federal law. The court therefore finds that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 cannot be relied upon to confer jurisdiction on this court.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a garnishment action arising solely under state law.

Berry v. Jimmy McLemore Town of Maben, Mississippi and New Hampshire Insurance Co., Garnishee-Appellees · filed 1986-07-28

We can find no basis, however, for federal jurisdiction in the Berry-Town garnishment proceeding. First, subject matter jurisdiction as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, does not exist, because an action for a writ of garnishment arises from state law, not federal law.

Conclusory allegations of federal constitutional violations do not satisfy Section 1331's substantial-or-essential federal-question requirement.

Dennis v. Figueroa · filed 1986-08-27

Conclusory allegations of federal constitutional violations do not meet the “substantial” or “essential” criteria of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 and the case law interpreting the federal question statute.

A state wrongful-discharge claim based on federal nuclear-safety policy does not arise under Section 1331 when federal law supplies only an administrative remedy and no private right of action.

Gaballah v. PG & E · filed 1989-05-10

However, this remedy is administrative, providing only for investigation by the Secretary of Labor. 42 U.S.C. § 5251(b). ... Therefore, plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim does not state a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment claims that arise solely under state law and present no federal question.

Bennett v. General Caster Service of N. Gordon Company, Inc. Richard D. Cowles, Sr. Janice P. Cowles · filed 1990-01-19

No basis for federal jurisdiction over plaintiff's complaint exists. Plaintiff alleged nothing that could be construed as a "federal question," see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, and diversity of citizenship is absent. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332. Plaintiff's claims arise, if at all, solely under state law and must be asserted in the state courts.

Merely citing Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no federal cause of action.

National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People-Special Contribution Fund v. Jones · filed 1990-03-07

Of course, the mere invocation of § 1331, without more, is meaningless and does not in itself confer federal question jurisdiction.

A straightforward state-law tort action between nondiverse parties presents no federal question under Section 1331 and cannot be transferred to a federal district court that would lack subject-matter jurisdiction.

Abdulghani v. Virgin Islands Seaplane Shuttle, Inc. · filed 1990-10-24

As applied to the facts of this case, the applicable legal rule requires that this Court deny defendant’s motion for a change of venue. As defendant concedes, this case is a straightforward torts action. There is no federal question jurisdiction. Likewise, there is no diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and defendant: Dr. Abdulghani is a citizen of the Virgin Islands and VISS, at the time of suit, was a Virgin Islands corporation. Therefore, there is no federal district court in the country in which plaintiff could have brought this suit.

Section 1331 does not give jurisdiction over common-law fraud claims merely related to earlier federal litigation.

Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell · filed 1990-12-10

For the reasons below, we conclude that there is neither diversity jurisdiction nor federal question jurisdiction under the provisions relied on by plaintiffs.

Section 1331 does not confer subject-matter jurisdiction when a complaint’s purported federal theories fail to state any cognizable federal claim.

Harman v. Wetzel · filed 1991-03-06

Although six of the seven counts allege violations of both state and federal law, for the purpose of this motion each count shall be analyzed only with respect to whether plaintiff has set forth a federal question claim upon which relief can be granted. If plaintiff fails to set forth a cognizable federal claim, then this court will have no subject matter jurisdiction over this action. ... Defendants’ motion to dismiss shall be granted because plaintiff has failed to set forth a federal question claim upon which relief can be granted and, hence, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over a common-law fraud and deceit claim that does not arise under federal law.

Danielsen v. Burnside-Ott Aviation Training Center, Inc. · filed 1991-08-16

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal question jurisdiction section, of course grants “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising out of the Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States.” As Count V alleges common law fraud and deceit, it would not come within either of the jurisdictional statutes asserted by appellants.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over conclusory state tort allegations of fraud, libel, slander, and false pretenses.

Dewine v. Cuyahoga County Department of Human Services · filed 1993-10-15

Dewine's conclusory allegations of fraud, libel, slander, and false pretenses do not present a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction to decide policy objections to a state agency’s interpretation of state law.

Kelly v. Nordberg · filed 1994-04-07

This “modern world” argument goes to the wisdom of the Department’s interpretation of a law of the Commonwealth. It is, therefore, more properly addressed to the Massachusetts legislature, as it raises policy issues beyond this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not make a state action to enforce a drinking-water order arise exclusively under federal law merely because the state implements the Safe Drinking Water Act.

State v. Town of Westerly, No. Pjr-97-0575565-S (Aug. 13, 1999) · filed 1999-08-13

For instance, the court is not persuaded that this case arises exclusively under federal law for the purpose of supporting federal question jurisdiction to the courts of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 .

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a dispute governed by state contract law concerning the interpretation of a private interconnection agreement.

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Connect Communications · filed 1999-09-22

In sum, the Court concludes that SWBT has unsuccessfully tried to make a federal question out of an issue that is properly characterized as a matter of state contract law. In order to determine whether ISP calls are “local traffic,” and correspondingly, whether SWBT is required to compensate Connect for terminating these calls, the parties must turn to the wording of their 1997 Agreement. For these reasons, the Court concludes that SWBT has failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that this court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case under either 42 U.S.C. § 252 or 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as was asserted in its Complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the complaint conclusorily alleges constitutional violations.

De La Garza v. De La Garza · filed 2004-02-19

The complaint’s conclusory statement that Mrs. De La Garza violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments is hardly sufficient to transform this complaint into one stating a federal cause of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a private contract dispute that raises no issue under federal law.

Lee v. Cooper · filed 2019-09-20

There is nothing in the response to establish that this case involves anything more than an issue of state contract law, an issue that has already been litigated in state court, and which has resulted in an adverse decision for plaintiffs. Thus, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the existence of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a dispute involving only state-law claims.

Askins v. Stephens · filed 2020-03-17

While these issues may be of great importance to Plaintiffs, they are matters of state law and thus not sufficient grounds to invoke federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law landlord-tenant dispute that does not implicate federal law.

Linda v. Monson · filed 2022-10-03

This Court has no federal jurisdiction over a garden-variety landlord-tenant dispute under state law that does not implicate federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that an easement was illegally created under state law.

Garner v. Baker · filed 2023-01-13

The question of whether an illegal easement exists is a question of state law, not federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over landlord–tenant and other contract disputes governed by state law.

McEuens v. Leis · filed 2023-04-10

As to Leis and Diggins, the lack of jurisdiction is clear. McEuens alleges a dispute with Leis over unpaid rent. Disputes between tenants and landlords, as well as other contract disputes, are matters of state law.

Conclusory references to federal statutes or constitutional provisions do not establish federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint does not explain how they relate to the claims.

Emrit v. Jules · filed 2023-10-13

Insofar as he asserts in a conclusory fashion that this case “involves a discussion of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, Fourth Amendment, and Privileges and Immunities Clause,” id., he does not explain how any of the statutes or constitutional provisions relate to his case. Consequently, his allegations are insufficient to present a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a dispute governed by state law rather than federal law.

Rooney v. Camden Property Trust · filed 2024-02-08

Given our conclusion that Florida law (not federal law) governs this dispute, we certainly cannot exercise our federal-question jurisdiction—as Rooney seems to suggest.

Section 1331 does not give a court federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law attorney fee dispute merely because the underlying cases are pending in federal courts.

The Barnes Firm, P.C. v. Goldstein Greco, P.C. · filed 2024-07-30

Nor does the fact that some of the cases for which attorneys’ fees are disputed concern matters pending in other federal courts give this Court original jurisdiction over the instant claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the allegations concern only a state court custody determination.

Fuller v. Fuller · filed 2024-10-04

These are state law matters, and Petitioner does not present any facts which would invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that, even liberally construed, raises only a state-law contract dispute.

Faceson v. Flat Branch Mortgage · filed 2025-09-11

But his Complaint, even liberally construed, doesn’t raise a federal question. See generally id. Instead, the court construes this case as a dispute about a contract governed by state law.

A state may invoke Section 1331(a) in federal district court to litigate a federal-question matter even though the Supreme Court also has original but nonexclusive jurisdiction when a state is a party.

The State of Texas v. Reuben Pankey, Jim Brown, Marcus Burks, W. F. Martin, Frank Sauble, T. L. Roach, Carl Hennegan and · filed 1971-05-10(a)

But if a State elects instead to go into a Federal district court to institute a suit on a matter which is within the purview of § 1331(a), as Texas asserts is the situation here, Ames v. Kansas, supra, leaves no room to deny it that right because it may seem singular that it does not attempt to resort to the more prestigious channel—and possibly the more singular when there is a direct precedent for the filing of such an original action as to the particular type of situation, which there is here from the case of Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., supra, (discharge of noxiouj gases into Georgia by some Tennessee copper plants).

State courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over Section 1331 federal-question claims unless Congress makes federal jurisdiction exclusive.

Hernandez v. City of Phoenix · filed 1981-09-15

It is well settled that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts in the so-called federal question jurisdiction cases. ... We conclude that the state court has concurrent subject matter jurisdiction in claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 4622(c) of the URA.

Section 1331 grants district courts original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction over federal-question civil actions, leaving state courts concurrent jurisdiction subject to removal.

Cohen v. Kar Products, Inc. (In Re Repair & Maintenance Parts Corp.) · filed 1982-04-23

In 1980 Congress amended 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to provide that district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions under the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States. Congress did not provide nor has it ever provided for exclusivity of these questions in the federal courts. State courts may now exercise and have previously exercised jurisdiction over these civil actions concurrently with the federal courts, subject to removal to the district courts.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a state is an appropriate parens patriae plaintiff asserting a colorable federal civil-rights claim.

People v. 11 Cornwell Company · filed 1982-11-30

If the State is an appropriate plaintiff, there is clearly federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 as amended, or civil rights jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1343, or both.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a state is an appropriate parens patriae plaintiff asserting a colorable federal civil-rights claim.

People of New York v. 11 Cornwell Co. · filed 1982-11-30

If the State is an appropriate plaintiff, there is clearly federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as amended, or civil rights jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343, or both.

Congress’s 1980 removal of Section 1331’s amount-in-controversy requirement did not restrict state courts’ concurrent jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims.

Kunkle v. Fulton County Board of Commissioners · filed 1991-01-08

Appellants contend that Grace Brethren Church is no longer good law because the district court's decision in that case was filed in 1979, before 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 was amended in 1980 to broaden federal court jurisdiction by removing the minimum amount in controversy requirement. Appellants conclude that this broadening of federal jurisdiction necessarily implied a corresponding limitation on state court jurisdiction. The district court properly rejected this argument as utterly devoid of merit.

Section 1331 does not give federal district courts exclusive authority to decide whether a federal statute is constitutional.

Graham v. Dunkley · filed 2006-09-11

In addition, the power to pass on the constitutionality of 49 USC § 30106 is not exclusively within the federal question jurisdiction of the federal district courts (28 USC § 1331).

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over federal claims, but federal-question jurisdiction remains concurrent with state courts unless the statute creating the claim expressly makes it exclusive.

Betskoff v. Diane S. Rosenberg and Associates LLC · filed 2019-08-16

The FDCPA is indeed a federal statute that gives rise to this Court’s federal question jurisdiction, but federal question jurisdiction is not exclusive unless the statute giving rise to jurisdiction explicitly so states (which the FDCPA does not).

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over an FMLA claim even though the claim may also be heard in state court.

Maynarich v. Alta Equipment Holdings, Inc. · filed 2020-10-30

But allowing both state and federal courts to hear FMLA claims does not mean such claims fall outside federal law for federal jurisdiction purposes.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over federal-law claims even when a bankruptcy court may also have jurisdiction over the dispute.

Shefa, LLC v. City of Southfield · filed 2021-09-28

And while it is well-settled law that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, extensive analysis of the bankruptcy court’s continuing jurisdiction is unnecessary, because this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over Plaintiffs’ federal law claims and may exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over the remaining state-law claims. Defendants point to no authority that would divest this Court of subject matter jurisdiction merely because the bankruptcy court may also have jurisdiction over the issues at bar. And the Sixth Circuit has previously rejected just this argument. In re Camall Co., 16 F. App’x 403, 410 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting no authority for the proposition that a bankruptcy court may “divest the Federal District Court of its plenary jurisdiction” regardless of whether a proceeding is core or non-core). Therefore, this Court does not lack subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over a claim arising under federal law even when a state court can also decide it.

Crawford v. Ally Finalcial, Inc. · filed 2023-06-23

And although Plaintiff correctly notes that the state court “is fully capable of deciding” his federal claim, (id.), that fact does not divest this Court of original jurisdiction over the claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over his other claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over TCPA claims even when state courts have concurrent jurisdiction.

Sandhu v. Citibank, N.A. · filed 2024-12-10

Thus, the fact that the state court had concurrent jurisdiction is “irrelevant” to whether federal question jurisdiction exists. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and therefore removal was proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over FDCPA and TCPA claims even though state courts can also hear them.

Bailey · filed 2026-03-30

Although, as Plaintiff correctly notes, state courts can adjudicate FDCPA and TCPA claims, their power to do so does not extinguish the original jurisdiction of federal district courts.

Section 1331 does not permit a suit for money damages against a private corporation or a private person for an alleged constitutional infringement.

Eden v. Home Depot USA · filed 2021-03-15

Therefore, Plaintiff may not sue a private corporation and a private person for money damages pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A constitutional claim against a private entity invokes Section 1331 only when government action significantly fosters or encourages the particular private activity being challenged.

Driscoll v. International Union Of Operating Engineers, Local 139 · filed 1973-09-11

To be regulable under constitutional standards through Sec. 1331 or Sec. 1983, the very activity of a private entity which a plaintiff challenges must be supported by state action, Doe v. Bellin Memorial Hospital, 479 F.2d 756, 761 (7th Cir. 1973), Powe v. Miles, 407 F.2d 73, 81 (2d Cir. 1968), that significantly fosters or encourages that activity.

A constitutional claim against a private entity invokes Section 1331 only when government action significantly fosters or encourages the particular private activity being challenged.

Driscoll v. International Union of Operating Engineers · filed 1973-09-11

To be regulable under constitutional standards through § 1331 or § 1983, the very activity of a private entity which a plaintiff challenges must be supported by state action, Doe v. Bellin Memorial Hospital, 479 F.2d 756, 761 (7th Cir. 1973), Powe v. Miles, 407 F.2d 73, 81 (2d Cir. 1968), that significantly fosters or encourages that activity.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a constitutional claim based on private conduct that is neither state action nor action under color of state law.

Kinch v. Chrysler Credit Corporation · filed 1973-06-20

We conclude that defendant did not act under color of state law for the purposes of invoking Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, nor was there “state action” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, no jurisdiction exists under § 1983 nor under Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a private school's expulsion of a student when no federal or state governmental action is involved.

Morgan v. St. Francis Preparatory School · filed 1971-05-24

The expulsion here was by a private preparatory school with no significant relationship to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and thus the expulsion was not under color of state law. ... There is no federal question which would confer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A constitutional claim against private actors does not arise under Section 1331(a) when the constitutional provisions invoked require governmental action and no such action is present.

Reid v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. · filed 1971-06-08(a)

Plaintiffs assert this claim is sufficient to bring them within the “arising under” jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... By their terms, the first and fifth amendments proscribe federal governmental action, not the actions of private persons.

Section 1331 cannot be invoked merely because state officials failed to follow state law; a plaintiff must allege injury to a federally protected or constitutionally guaranteed right.

Moore v. Kusper · filed 1972-09-07

These rights, protected by the first, fifth and fourteenth amendments, together with rights subject to prosecution under sections 1983 and 1985 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1983, 1985 are the basis upon which federal jurisdiction is predicated. 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331, 1343. ... However, to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts and to be entitled to relief therefrom, the plaintiffs must allege more than the mere failure of state officials to follow state law. ... In order to state a federal cause of action upon which relief could be granted, plaintiffs would have had to allege that the Election Board's actions violated some federally protected or constitutionally guaranteed right of the plaintiffs. Although the complaint does allege the requisite constitutional rights, it does not allege an individual injury to these plaintiffs.

A Fourteenth Amendment claim under § 1331 requires state action, so purely private self-help repossession does not establish federal jurisdiction.

Pease Ex Rel. Lambert v. Havelock National Bank · filed 1972-12-05

When, as here, the claim is based on the Fourteenth Amendment, sections 1331 and 1343(3) and (4) differ as to the necessity of a jurisdictional amount, but are alike in requiring the presence of state action. Both rest, absent allegations of federal encroachment, upon the Fourteenth Amendment, which is limited to proscriptions upon states. That amendment declares, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. In the context of the present case it is not the State of Nebraska which has deprived the plaintiff of her life, liberty, or property, and, accordingly, this court has no jurisdiction over the controversy.

Section 1331 did not support a due-process claim against a private university when government involvement did not extend to the faculty-dismissal policy that caused the alleged injury.

Wahba v. New York University · filed 1973-06-12

Jurisdiction rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendants move for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings on the limited ground that their dismissal of the plaintiff does not rise to the level of state action and therefore that plaintiff’s claim that he has been denied due process of law must fail. ... The involvement of the government in the case at bar did not extend to the dictating of ... policy regarding procedures by which faculty should be hired or fired. ... Summary judgment is accordingly granted in defendants’ favor.

A private repossession under a contract recognized by state commercial law lacks the significant state action needed to confer jurisdiction under § 1331.

Calderon v. United Furniture Co. · filed 1973-12-26

This situation is not similar to that in Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1971), where the replevin was had through the aid of judicial process. Nor is this a case in which the state statute creates an independent remedy for the creditor, as did the Texas Landlord’s Lien Act involved in Hall v. Garson, 468 F.2d 845 (5th Cir. 1972). Rather, this case is analagous to Adams v. Southern California First National Bank, 492 F.2d 324 (9th Cir. 1973), in which an automobile was summarily repossessed and sold pursuant to the security agreement executed by the parties. There, the Court held the fact that such contract was recognized by the California Commercial Code did not constitute the requisite significant state action so as to confer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C., §§ 1331, 1343; 42 U.S.C., § 1983. ... It is, therefore, ordered that the plea to the jurisdiction filed herein by the Defendant should be, and it is hereby, granted, and this cause should be dismissed.

Section 1331(a) does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a private deed-of-trust foreclosure merely because state law permits the contractual sale procedure.

Leisure Estates of America, Inc. v. Carmel Development Co. · filed 1974-01-24(a)

This Court concludes that a sale pursuant to the provisions of a deed of trust, to which instrument the aggrieved Plaintiff was a party, does not involve significant state action to make a federal case out of it. This is so even if Article 3810 does permit the proceeding.

A Section 1331 constitutional claim against a private hospital requires a direct nexus between governmental involvement and the challenged hospital activity; government funding and regulation alone are insufficient.

Slavcoff v. Harrisburg Polyclinic Hospital · filed 1974-03-25

The end product of the fact finding process must result in more than the mere conclusion that the state is involved in some activity of the institution. The state must be intertwined in the very activity which caused plaintiff’s injury. ... Having considered the facts and all of plaintiff’s contentions, I am convinced that the government has not so far “insinuated itself into a position of interdependence with (Harrisburg Polyclinic Hospital) that it must be recognized as a joint participant in the challenged activity.” ... Accordingly, for the reasons expressed above, defendant’s motion to dismiss will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Section 1331 does not support a Fourteenth Amendment claim against a private hospital when state and county officials neither regulate nor influence the challenged medical policy.

Greco v. Orange Memorial Hospital Corporation · filed 1974-03-29

In the present case the Court finds that the Orange Memorial Hospital is a private hospital operated by the Orange Memorial Hospital Corporation, which is a non-profit corporation. The evidence supports the conclusion that Orange County and the State of Texas have never sought to regulate or influence the medical policy to be followed within the hospital and in particular with respect to the performance or nonperformance of elective abortions therein. The County and State have remained completely neutral on the medical policy of the hospital. Therefore, there is no state action involved and the defendants were not acting under color of state law. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this suit, and the plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction for constitutional claims against a private university absent state action or a nexus between the challenged conduct and governmental involvement.

Blouin v. Loyola University · filed 1975-01-08

We agree. ... The licensing of an otherwise private entity by the government does not, of itself, require a finding of state action. ... Furthermore, the record does not disclose any “nexus” between the alleged unconstitutional activity and the purported federal and state government involvement. Accordingly the order of the district court dismissing the complaint is affirmed.

Section 1331 jurisdiction existed over constitutional claims against the NCAA where pervasive public-university participation made the association's conduct state action.

Howard University Et At. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. Howard University v. National Collegiate Athletic · filed 1975-03-25

We hold that state action is present and that the district court correctly determined it possessed jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1970).

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to internal union proceedings when no state action is alleged.

Golden v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America · filed 1975-06-12

It is unnecessary to decide the defendants’ claim based on the statute of limitations, for it is clear that this court lacks jurisdiction of this action. An essential element of a fourteenth amendment claim is an allegation of state action.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over constitutional claims challenging purely private conduct because claims under the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment require government involvement.

Holton v. Crozer-Chester Medical Center · filed 1976-06-30

Nevertheless, section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction in this case. Claims brought under the Bill of Rights or the Fourteenth Amendment require a showing of government involvement in the challenged activity. These constitutional provisions are limitations on government activity, not means of regulating the behavior of private individuals.

Section 1331 does not support a direct constitutional due-process claim against private labor organizations without state action for a Fourteenth Amendment claim or a sufficient federal-government connection for a Fifth Amendment claim.

Local No. 1 (aca), Broadcast Employees of The International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. International Brotherhood of Tea · filed 1976-06-21

The plaintiffs’ direct constitutional due process claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, adverted to in the jurisdictional paragraph of the complaint but not seeming to form the basis of any Count, must fail for the same reason. The Fourteenth Amendment only requires the ... states ... and those in concert with them to give notice and a fair hearing before depriving a person of “liberty” or “property.” There is no such Fourteenth Amendment obligation applicable to the relationship of two labor organizations. Nor are there any factual allegations to support a connection between IBT and the ... federal ... government sufficient to sustain a direct claim under § 1331 and the Fifth Amendment, also referred to in the jurisdictional paragraph but not in any Count.

A direct constitutional claim under Section 1331 requires state action for a Fourteenth Amendment theory or a sufficient federal-government connection for a Fifth Amendment theory.

Local No. 1 (Aca), Etc. v. Ibt, C., W. & H. · filed 1976-08-12

The plaintiffs' direct constitutional due process claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, adverted to in the jurisdictional paragraph of the complaint but not seeming to form the basis of any Count, must fail for the same reason. The Fourteenth Amendment only requires the states and those in concert with them to give notice and a fair hearing before depriving a person of "liberty" or "property." There is no such Fourteenth Amendment obligation applicable to the relationship of two labor organizations. Nor are there any factual allegations to support a connection between IBT and the federal government sufficient to sustain a direct claim under § 1331 and the Fifth Amendment, also referred to in the jurisdictional paragraph but not in any Count.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a constitutional claim requires allegations that the challenged conduct involved state or federal action.

Kempf v. R. & E. Transit Co. · filed 1978-12-20

Federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 requires the statement of a claim which "arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Since Kempf made no allegations that the actions of appellees were in any way state or federal actions, and alleged no facts from which state or federal involvement in the actions of appellees could be inferred, she failed to state a claim arising under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution which would support a finding of federal jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal constitutional jurisdiction over a private entity’s conduct when the required governmental action is absent.

Gray v. Project More, Inc. · filed 1979-04-18

The court will not entertain these motions in light of its ruling that there is no governmental action present and hence no federal constitutional jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a Fifth Amendment claim against a private organization depends on showing that the organization is a federal agent or instrumentality.

Joseph v. Ulster County Community Action Committee Inc. · filed 1979-08-23(a)

Even assuming ... that plaintiff could establish a claim for damages in the necessary jurisdictional amount, and recognizing that a cause of action and damages remedy can be implied directly under the Constitution, ... jurisdiction of this Court depends on a showing that UCCAC can be considered a federal agent or instrumentality.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a direct Fourteenth Amendment claim against a private defendant absent state action.

Langley v. Monumental Corp. · filed 1980-08-25

the conduct of private parties, allowed by a statute enacted by the state, does not constitute “state action” within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment. Since the state has not “acted,” there is no “state action” to review. Accordingly, the County’s motion to dismiss must be granted.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over constitutional claims against a private entity when the challenged conduct constitutes federal state action.

Donald L. Dobyns, Mark Lee and Randall Eugene Bullock v. E-Systems, Inc. · filed 1982-02-18

We hold that the requisite state action was present. Appellants may bring their constitutional claims against E-Systems. Because we find that state action posits federal jurisdiction, we need not reach appellant Dobyns’ arguments concerning the severance of his claim.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a Fifth Amendment claim when the challenged conduct is not federal governmental action.

Gerena v. Puerto Rico Legal Services, Inc. · filed 1982-04-30

This case was treated solely as an action under § 1983. The pretrial order was limited to this cause of action and Gerena’s tendered instructions were also limited to § 1983. The jury was so instructed, without objection. Gerena did not request that Fifth Amendment instructions be given to the jury. Although the standards are essentially the same as earlier discussed, they are two separate causes of action. Plaintiff fails to understand this important distinction. Nevertheless, under the circumstances in this case, the Court does not find it a problem. Assuming a properly asserted Fifth Amendment cause of action, the Court would still not possess jurisdiction because there is a clear absence of federal governmental action.

Section 1331 does not support a damages action based solely on violation of a federal regulation when the governing statute does not create or imply a private cause of action.

Lechtner v. James Brownyard, D/B/A W. H. Y. P. Country Radio · filed 1982-06-02

We conclude that the complaint fails to state a claim arising under the laws of the United States, and that the judgment must be vacated. ... Applying this statutory test to the Personal Attack Rule we hold that no private cause of action can be implied.

Section 1331 cannot independently sustain a federal statutory claim when the statute creates no private right of action.

Allegheny County Sanitary Authority v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · filed 1983-02-17

The premise for federal jurisdiction in the ... case, section 1331, has been rejected in the case at bar. As discussed above, the Court has determined that ALCOSAN has no constitutional rights which it can assert against the state defendants and has no right of action under the FWPCA against the state defendants. Thus, declaratory relief is inappropriate.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only a personal dispute among private church members and pleads no viable federal civil-rights claim.

Schneider v. Bahler · filed 1983-06-02

For the foregoing reasons the plaintiff has failed to allege any basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and has failed to state any claim for relief under either 42 U.S.C. § 1982 or 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).

Section 1331 does not create a damages action for an alleged constitutional violation by a privately retained attorney whose conduct lacks governmental involvement.

Barham v. Edwards · filed 1983-07-20

The question, then, is whether section 1331 gives jurisdiction to the federal district courts of actions for money damages in each circumstance where there is a violation of a citizen’s constitutional right by another private citizen. ... Ineffective assistance of counsel does not rise to the level of a cause of action under the Constitution because there is insufficient government involvement.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over constitutional claims against private parties when the complaint alleges no state action.

De Wit v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, N.V. · filed 1983-09-07

The only other basis for subject matter jurisdiction is the alleged presence of a substantial federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court, however, can find no basis for federal question jurisdiction in the present case.' ... However, there is no allegation or evidence of state action which is the predicate for the existence of a constitutional violation under these amendments.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a Fifth Amendment claim against a federally funded private entity when the entity’s conduct is not federal action.

Knauth v. North Country Legal Services · filed 1983-10-17

The jurisdiction of this court is dependent upon the presence of either a defendant acting under an office of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or a plausible Title VII claim, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). Each of these jurisdictional bases has proven unavailable.

A plaintiff relying exclusively on violations of a federal statute and its regulations must establish an express or implied private cause of action under that statute to sustain § 1331 jurisdiction.

Wilson v. Mason State Bank · filed 1984-07-09

The Wilsons’ claim for damages is based exclusively on the Bank’s alleged violation of federal regulations governing the loan transaction. The Wilsons allege that the violations confer federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To sustain federal jurisdiction, the Wilsons must establish that the Emergency Agricultural Credit Adjustment Act creates or implies a private cause of action for alleged violations.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a damages claim for violations of federal regulations requires the governing federal statute to create an express or implied private cause of action.

Wilson v. Mason State Bank · filed 1984-08-09

The Wilsons' claim for damages is based exclusively on the Bank's alleged violation of federal regulations governing the loan transaction. The Wilsons allege that the violations confer federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. To sustain federal jurisdiction, the Wilsons must establish that the Emergency Agricultural Credit Adjustment Act creates or implies a private cause of action for alleged violations. The Act does not provide expressly for private enforcement of it and, applying the analysis set forth in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 2087, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975), we find that nothing in the Act or the regulations relied on by the Wilsons supports the implication of a private cause of action.

Section 1331 does not support a constitutional civil-rights claim against private defendants when the alleged deprivation is not fairly attributable to state action.

Giannattasio v. Stamford Youth Hockey Ass'n, Inc. · filed 1985-09-17

Thus, under all traditional state action tests the ultimate issue of determining whether these defendants are subject to suit must be answered in the negative; the alleged infringements of plaintiffs’ federal rights are not fairly attributable to any form of state action. A review of the suspensions ordered by SYHA is therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of this court.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claim requires state action, and jurisdiction is absent when the challenged discrimination cannot fairly be attributed to the state.

Dezell v. Day Island Yacht Club · filed 1986-08-08

To properly assert jurisdiction under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Dezell must demonstrate state action. ... There was no state action and the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We reverse its judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment claim.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction merely because a federal question exists when no express or implied private cause of action is available.

Guinto v. Marcos · filed 1986-10-31

Moreover, even where a federal question exists, the lack of a private cause of action, either express or implied, requires dismissal of the lawsuit. ... As plaintiffs have not alleged a cause of action under § 1350, it follows that under the facts of this case, jurisdiction does not exist under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a Bivens claim against privately retained defense attorneys because they are not federal officials acting under color of federal authority.

Campbell v. E. Blair Brown James C. Clark · filed 1988-06-10

Nor is there any federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 as Campbell's former attorneys are not federal officials amenable to suit under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a takings claim only when the alleged taking is fairly attributable to state action.

Albert Pinkham, Sr. Cyrus Wilkinson Connie Allen Moore Francis Allen v. Lewiston Orchards Irrigation District, and Unite · filed 1988-11-29

By contrast, in order to allege jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for a takings claim, the taking must be fairly attributable to state action.

Section 1331 does not cover claims under the Declaration of Independence or constitutional claims against a purely private actor without alleged government involvement.

Bowler v. Welsh · filed 1989-08-22

We have no jurisdiction over claims allegedly arising under the Declaration of Independence. ... Plaintiff’s claims under the fifth and fourteenth amendments are also fatally flawed, because he has sued a private individual. Both the fifth and fourteenth amendments protect individuals only against actions of the government, either federal or state, and not against actions of a private party. ... Plaintiff has not, then, successfully invoked our federal question jurisdiction, as plaintiff’s claim does not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 jurisdiction and pendent jurisdiction remain while a Section 1983 claim against an alleged state actor and private co-conspirators survives; if the federal claims drop out, the pendent state claims must be dismissed.

Scheetz v. Morning Call, Inc. · filed 1990-02-27

Were the federal claims to drop out, this court would lose its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1343. The pendent state claims would therefore be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1). ... Since the Doe defendant may remain in this action, at least for the moment, the predicate for the other dismissals is absent. The motion to dismiss Mutchler and Morning Call for lack of subject matter jurisdiction shall therefore be denied.

Section 1331 does not support federal constitutional and civil-rights claims against private security personnel absent adequately pleaded state action, and without a federal claim the court cannot retain pendent state claims.

Vassallo v. Clover, Division of Strawbridge & Clothier · filed 1990-07-24

Here, the complaint makes no effort to aver this ba sic element of § 1983. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss must be granted. ... Without federal question jurisdiction, pendent state law claims must be dismissed.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim under National Bank Act § 92a when that provision supplies no implied private right of action.

In Re Fidelity Bank Trust Fee Litigation · filed 1993-11-19

Thus, based on all four factors, we conclude there is no private right of action which can be implied under section 92a. As such, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when an independent express or implied private right of action supports the claim.

Storey v. Rubin · filed 1997-04-25

Further, Plaintiffs cannot assert federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, or 1346. Federal courts have federal question subject matter jurisdiction under these sections only when Congress explicitly or implicitly has created a private right of action independent of these sections supporting a given plaintiffs claim.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a claim only if another source of federal law creates a private right of action for it.

White v. Paulsen · filed 1998-03-16

Thus, for jurisdiction to exist under § 1331 over Plaintiffs’ “crimes against humanity” cause of action, a source of federal law other than § 1331 must give rise to a private right of action for the violations of international law they allege.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself create a private right of action for claims under the Medicare or Medicaid Acts.

Wilson-Coker v. COMMUNITY NURSE AND HOME CARE · filed 2002-09-24

However, the Court finds that the plaintiff-intervenors have failed to point to any authority within the Medicare or Medicaid Acts or interpreting the federal ques...tion statute that provides for a private right of action in federal court on their claims against the State plaintiffs.

Section 1331 does not support federal-question jurisdiction over an alleged violation of § 753 because § 753 creates no private right of action.

Horan v. Wilcox & Fetzer Ltd. · filed 2005-10-28

Section 753 does not create or imply a right of action for individuals to support a federal question cause of action under Section 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims under Medicare and Medicaid facility regulations that do not confer a private cause of action.

Schneller v. Crozer Chester Medical Center · filed 2010-07-20

Schneller’s claims under 42 C.F.R. §§ 483.10, 483.13, 483.15, and 483.25 do not provide a basis for jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331 because they merely set forth the requirements that a facility must meet in order to qualify to participate in Medicare and Medicaid; they do not confer a private cause of action.

Section 1331 governs federal-question jurisdiction but does not create a private cause of action.

Brown (ID 57800) v. Schnurr · filed 2022-08-24

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, and 1343 all govern the scope of federal jurisdiction; they do not create private causes of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the statutes invoked provide no private cause of action.

PINCKNEY v. SOMERSET PROBATION CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT · filed 2025-08-13

Therefore, without any federal statute providing a private cause of action, there is no federal question jurisdiction, and accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed on this basis.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over federal questions but does not itself create a private cause of action.

Kansas Hospital Ass'n v. Whiteman · filed 1993-11-03

While 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers jurisdiction in this court to address federal questions, it does not authorize a private cause of action for redress of any claimed violation of federal law.

A claim does not arise under federal law for Section 1331(a) merely because federal funds support the program when no cited federal law creates the right asserted.

The Albany Welfare Rights Organization Day Care Center, Inc. v. Schreck · filed 1972-06-09(a)

But, for purposes of Sec. 1331, the right asserted by this plaintiff is not one "arising under" a federal law. Neither of the statutory provisions cited by the Center can be read as creating a federal right to have state officials purchase services from the Center.

A complaint alleging a right to use patented land under federal mineral-reservation statutes states an action arising under federal law within Section 1331.

Mountain Fuel Supply Company, a Utah Corporation v. Emory C. Smith and Verland E. Smith · filed 1973-01-08

We hold that the complaint does so allege an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the trial court had jurisdiction of the parties and the cause.

A contract dispute involving a local housing authority does not present a Section 1331 federal question merely because the housing project receives federal loans and contributions.

Hickey v. Crow Creek Housing Authority · filed 1974-07-08

In this case, where the “Local Authority” (Crow Creek Housing Authority) has undertaken to acquire, develop, operate, and administer the low-rent housing Project, said project is not a “federal project” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1416, even though the project has been financed by loans and annual contributions from the United States Government. United States for Use and Benefit of Hutto Concrete Co. v. Magna Bldg. Corp., 305 F.Supp. 1244 (Ga.1969); United States for Use and Benefit of Nobels Insulation Co. v. Magna Bldg. Corp., 305 F.Supp. 1246 (Ga.1969). Thus a federal question is not presented and federal jurisdiction fails.

Federal financial assistance alone does not convert a private university into a federal agency or establish Section 1331(a) jurisdiction without federal control over the challenged activity.

Spark v. The Catholic University of America · filed 1975-04-07(a)

Appellant argues that the trial court was required to afford him an oral hearing before ruling on the motion for summary judgment and that his complaint alleged a “federal question” sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... The fact that the Federal Government contributes funds to the University, by itself, is insufficient to show the exercise of influence on University decision-making or the encouragement of specific policies. ... appellant did not allege any additional federal involvement in the affairs of Catholic University beyond the contribution of federal funds, we conclude that federal jurisdiction does not exist in this case.

Section 1331 does not support a due-process claim against a private university absent government control sufficient to make the university's conduct federal action.

Williams v. Howard University · filed 1976-01-06

We must therefore conclude that federal jurisdiction does not exist for his due process claim, because it has not been shown that the Government exercises some form of control over the actions of Howard.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a Fifth Amendment employment claim when pervasive federal funding and control make a nominally private employer's discharge federal action.

Mathis v. Opportunities Industrialization Centers, Inc. · filed 1976-11-12

We hold that Federal action was involved in the discharge of the plaintiff and that therefore the district court did have jurisdiction to consider the matter of due process under the Fiftl^ Amendment.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to determine whether the federal law invoked by a plaintiff confers rights upon that plaintiff.

De Alvarez v. Creole Petroleum Corp. · filed 1978-12-15

I have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1333 to determine whether the law relied upon by plaintiffs confers any rights upon them.

A claim arises under federal law for Section 1331 jurisdiction when it seeks a federally granted remedy and requires construction of a federal statute, even if the same conduct also violates state law.

Louise B. v. Aldo Coluatti, Etc. Appeal of Louise B. And Janie J. And Josephine R · filed 1979-09-28(a)

These decisions support the sensible rule that a state’s mere promulgation of a regulation does not eliminate the existence of a federal question where it is alleged that the state’s actual practices do not conform with the requirements of the federal statute. ... Since we have also decided that appellants seek a remedy granted by federal law, their confidentiality claim qualifies as one arising under federal law under both of the first two tests of ... We, therefore, hold that the district court did have jurisdiction under Section 1331.

A federally regulated ingredient in a local lease dispute does not alone create Section 1331 jurisdiction unless federal law expressly grants the remedy or federal statutory construction or policy is required to decide the claim.

Richardson v. Virgin Islands Housing Authority · filed 1981-02-23

A cause of action arises under the laws of the United States “if and only if the complaint seeks a remedy expressly granted by federal law or if it requires the construction of a federal statute on a distinctive policy or a federal statute requires the application of federal legal principles for its disposition.” ... This lawsuit centers around a lease between VIHA and its low income tenants. Although parts of that lease are subject to federal regulation that federal ingredient alone will not confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331(a) permits jurisdiction to decide whether federal housing law creates a duty, but not over ordinary contract claims that neither implicate a distinctive federal policy nor arise under federal common law.

Berks Products Corp. v. Landreau · filed 1981-09-24(a)

I hold that whether or not the National Housing Act gives rise to any duty by HUD to plaintiff subcontractors is an important federal question over which I take jurisdiction. ... Whether the plaintiffs have a right to enforce these contracts as third-party beneficiaries is a contract claim pure and simple and is not a federal question and does not implicate the National Housing Act. ... Therefore, the contract claims do not arise under federal common law. ... In sum, I have jurisdiction under § 1331 and § 1337 limited to consideration of whether the National Housing Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder give rise to any duty by HUD to the plaintiffs. Duties based purely on contracts arise neither under the National Housing Act nor under federal common law.

After elimination of its amount-in-controversy requirement, § 1331 provides jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim alleging violation of a federal statutory right.

McGhee v. Housing Authority of City of Lanett · filed 1982-05-25

Title 28, U.S.C., § 1331 — the federal question jurisdictional provision — was amended on December 1, 1980, to delete the $10,-000.00 amount in controversy provision. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction over any alleged § 1983 claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1437a.

Federal contributions to a student-loan fund do not automatically make every loan dispute arise under Section 1331.

The Inter-American University of Puerto Rico, Inc. (National Direct Student Loan) v. Concepcion · filed 1983-09-13

The fact that the NDSL fund is derived in part from federal contributions does not, however, automatically give the federal courts jurisdiction to hear any dispute arising from the NDSL loan agreement. It is the nature of the action before the court, not the nature of the loan program, that establishes the existence or absence of federal jurisdiction.

Federal funding of a state program alone does not create federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 over a challenge to the state’s administration of that program.

Braxton v. Boggess · filed 2022-08-11

Instead, the Plaintiff appears to assert that federal question jurisdiction would be proper because the Federal Government provides funding for the WVHRP. However, this is insufficient to establish a federal question.

Receiving tribal funds as rental assistance alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

LaDeaux v. JL Property Management · filed 2023-10-17

The court by analogy finds that LaDeaux has not established federal question jurisdiction solely because tribal funds were used as part of her rental assistance.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over claims alleging infringement of federal statutory rights, including rights under § 1738A.

Flood v. Braaten · filed 1984-02-16

The general grant of subject matter jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Supp. V 1981), permits federal district courts to hear claims that federal rights have been infringed. Altogether denying parents a district court forum for lawsuits claiming violation of rights under § 1738A would come close to a judicial repeal of those statutory rights.