28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over an ERISA benefits claim even if the plaintiff cannot establish the existence of an ERISA plan; that requirement goes to the merits of the claim.

Daft v. Advest, Inc. · filed 2011-09-23

The district court’s jurisdiction to impose this judgment, and this court’s jurisdiction to hear Defendants’ appeal, hinges on whether this action falls within federal-question jurisdiction. Federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the . . . laws . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Therefore, in light of Arbaugh and its progeny, the existence of an ERISA plan must be considered an element of a plaintiff’s claim under Section 502(a)(1)(B), not a prerequisite for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 original jurisdiction over a federal RICO claim persists when the plaintiff lacks statutory RICO standing because the standing defect goes to the merits rather than jurisdiction.

Lerner v. Fleet Bank · filed 2003-01-22

Thus, Bayroff plaintiffs' lack of statutory standing does not divest the district court of original jurisdiction over the Bayroff action.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a damages claim merely because a federal question may exist when no substantive damages remedy is available.

Young v. Internal Revenue Service · filed 1984-09-25

Thus, while a federal question may exist, it provides no basis for plaintiff to recover damages. As such, § 1331 cannot provide this court with jurisdiction over plaintiff’s damage claim.

A plaintiff alleging personal injury from a defendant's violation of a federal statute may invoke § 1331; whether the statute creates a cause of action is a merits question.

Ash v. Cort · filed 1974-04-16

Alleging personal injury from defendants’ violation of a federal statute, plaintiff may invoke our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1970); questions of statutory construction will be met in determining whether plaintiff has stated a cause of action and in ruling on the merits of his claim.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists when a claim is alleged to arise under the Constitution even if the complaint fails separately because the cause is not justiciable.

Ad Hoc Committee on Judicial Administration v. Commonwealth · filed 1973-03-30

While the court does have jurisdiction of the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the claim is alleged to arise under the Constitution, the complaint does not state a justiciable cause of action.

Section 1331 gives a court jurisdiction to determine whether asserted federal constitutional and statutory claims state or can prove a claim for relief.

Smothers v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · filed 1972-11-14

Plaintiffs have attempted to maintain the action by claims for relief under the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under the Federal Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., as a Federal question case, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ... The Court has jurisdiction to determine whether Plaintiffs have stated or can prove a claim for relief.

Whether an Army regulation is judicially reviewable concerns the scope of review, not the existence of Section 1331 jurisdiction.

Friedman v. Robert F. Froehlke, Secretary of the Army · filed 1972-12-22

Defendants, in contesting jurisdiction on the ground that, under Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 73 S.Ct. 534, 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953), Army regulations of internal activities are not subject to judicial review, confuse the issue of jurisdiction with the scope of review.

When a case involving more than the historical jurisdictional minimum turns on the federal question whether an instrument is a security, Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction and failure to state a securities-law claim is a merits issue rather than a jurisdictional defect.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,475 Mary F. El Khadem v. Equity Securities Corporation, a Corporation · filed 1974-03-20

Although the motion was framed by defendants and treated by the district court as a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it is more properly characterized as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The question whether the case involved a security was itself a federal question, and since the case involves more than $10,000, the district court had ... under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Once jurisdiction is established from a complaint’s federal allegations, § 1331 permits the court to decide the case even if the plaintiff ultimately fails to prove the federal claim.

Mobil Oil Corporation v. Claude Kelley, Director of the Department of Conservation, Etc. · filed 1974-06-14

After jurisdiction has been determined to exist on the basis of the allegations of the complaint, the court has the power to decide the dispute between the parties even though the complainant ultimately fails to prove the cause of action on which jurisdiction was originally based.

When facts supporting Section 1331 jurisdiction are intertwined with the merits, the court may evaluate them under the summary-judgment standard.

Kemp Pontiac-Cadillac, Inc. v. Hartford Automobile Dealers' Ass'n · filed 1974-08-05

Aside from general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, no other basis for federal jurisdiction exists. ... But since the facts alleged to confer jurisdiction on the Court are entwined with the merits of this case and are thus at issue in the motions for summary judgment of the defendant automobile dealers and associations, the Court will apply the more rigorous evidentiary standard for summary judgment, as set out in Rules 56(c) and (e), Fed.R.Civ.P.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is not defeated merely because the complaint may fail to state a claim; that failure is a merits issue unless the asserted federal question is jurisdictionally insubstantial.

Smoke Rise, Inc. v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission · filed 1975-08-18

Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 due to the existence of a federal question arising under the United States Constitution. It is argued by defendants that this Court lacks jurisdiction because it appears on the face of the amended complaint that plaintiffs have failed to present a federal question. This contention, however, as evidenced by the memoranda in support of defendants’ motions to dismiss, goes to the merits of the complaint rather than to the jurisdiction of this Court.

A complaint invoking Section 1331 over a federal civil-rights claim presents a merits question, not a jurisdictional defect, when the federal law as the plaintiff construes it would establish relief on the alleged facts.

Dennis v. Hein · filed 1976-04-19

In its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, defendant contends that the complaint fails to allege the necessary elements of a proper § 1983 claim and then urges the court to conclude that jurisdiction therefore exists under neither 28 U.S.C. § 1331 nor 28 U.S.C. § 1343. ... Defendant’s motion to dismiss therefore must be considered as raising the issue of whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Under Section 1331, whether promissory notes qualify as securities under federal securities laws concerns failure to state a claim, not subject-matter jurisdiction.

Tri-County State Bank v. Hertz · filed 1976-05-20

Although defendants term their motion as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, ... the basis of the motion, that the promissory notes are not securities within the meaning of the federal securities laws, goes to whether or not plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief, and not whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Section 1331 jurisdiction based on a good-faith constitutional or federal-law claim is not defeated merely because the complaint ultimately fails to state a valid cause of action.

Bunting v. City of Columbia · filed 1976-10-29

However, they held that jurisdiction based on a good faith claim under the Constitution or laws of the United States, could not be defeated by the fact that a valid cause of action may not lie under existing laws. ... Accordingly, in view of the plaintiff’s allegations in this ease, this court has taken jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction to allege a direct Fourteenth Amendment claim against a municipality even when the complaint fails to state an implied damages remedy; the obstacle to damages does not extend to injunctive or declaratory relief.

Crosley v. Davis · filed 1977-01-27

We deem it important, before concluding, to stress our conviction that the problems with the implication of a damages remedy against a municipal entity based upon the Fourteenth Amendment and § 1331 jurisdiction do not arise in suits for injunctive or declaratory relief, regardless of the exclusions in § 1983. ... Concomitantly, our decision proceeds under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and not under rule 12(b)(1). We do believe that there is jurisdiction to allege the Fourteenth Amendment damage claim.

A plaintiff who omitted Section 1331(a) as a jurisdictional basis may amend the complaint to cure that pleading defect, but doing so does not prevent dismissal for failure to state a substantive claim.

D'Angelo v. Mishak · filed 1977-03-30(a)

Plaintiff did not assert § 1331(a) as a basis for jurisdiction in his complaint. Although he is free to amend his complaint to do so, and although such amendment would rectify the present jurisdictional pleading defect, the claim against the City would nevertheless be subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Section 1331 confers subject-matter jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law but does not itself create a substantive cause of action.

Sandoval v. Brown · filed 1977-06-09

While 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers upon the federal district courts subject, matter jurisdiction to consider claims said to “arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” it does not itself create any substantive cause of action.

Section 1331(a) jurisdiction depends on the substantive sufficiency and nonfrivolous character of a federal claim, not its probability of success; failure to state a claim is a merits issue rather than a jurisdictional defect.

Sheila Payne, Next Best Friend of Franklin Payne, a Minor v. Government of the District of Columbia · filed 1977-06-15(a)

Jurisdiction under § 1331(a) depends upon a degree of substantive sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claim and not upon the probability of success on the merits. ... Even a “[f]ailure to state a claim does not deprive the District Court of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a)” since that also is a matter affecting only the merits.

When claims arise under federal banking laws, Section 1331 jurisdiction is not defeated by a later determination that the complaint fails to state a valid federal cause of action.

Valente v. Dennis · filed 1977-08-03

Since plaintiffs’ claims arise under the federal banking laws, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1337. ... Therefore, defendant’s motion to dismiss, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) will be denied. The question remains, however, whether plaintiffs have stated a cause of action under the federal statutes which they have pleaded.

A nonfrivolous claim for federal relief arises under federal law for Section 1331 jurisdiction even when the court may ultimately determine that no federal right of recovery exists.

Kostka v. Hogg · filed 1977-08-04

The question of subject matter jurisdiction is, of course, distinct from that whether plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. ... So long as a claim for federal relief is not frivolous, the action arises under federal law for purposes of § 1331 and the federal court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim that a federal right of recovery exists.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a non-baseless federal constitutional claim even when the disputed issue is whether the complaint states a cause of action rather than whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists.

Owen v. City of Independence · filed 1977-08-15

Appellees phrase the issue in terms of subject matter jurisdiction. Properly viewed, however, the issue is whether Owen has stated a claim. Clearly, Owen’s claim “arises under” the Constitution or laws of the United States, and is not completely baseless or plainly foreclosed by prior decisions. Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 affords a federal district court subject matter jurisdiction over cases such as this one.

A complaint alleging a federal cause of action establishes Section 1331 jurisdiction unless the federal claim is wholly insubstantial or frivolous; resolving fact-bound substantiality as jurisdiction can improperly collapse jurisdiction into the merits.

Village Harbor, Inc., Milton O. Stein and Bert J. Stein v. The United States of America, Lake Lanier Islands Development · filed 1977-09-14

The complaint on its face alleges a federal cause of action for impermissible discrimination. The only ground for dismissal for want of subject jurisdiction would have been that the claims are “wholly insubstantial or frivolous.” ... In this case the jurisdictional question is the substantiality of the suit. The judge relied on evidence taken during three and a half days of hearings. Such a determination closely resembles a decision on the merits. To allow a jurisdictional dismissal in this situation would obscure the distinction between a subject matter jurisdiction dismissal and a summary judgment. Therefore, a dismissal for want of jurisdiction was not appropriate.

Section 1331(a) may confer jurisdiction over an agency-action suit even when the Administrative Procedure Act supplies no remedy because the challenged action is committed to agency discretion.

City of MacOn v. Marshall · filed 1977-10-28(a)

Thus, while this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), plaintiff City of Macon’s remedy in this court, ... is set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 through 706; and that remedy does not apply — is not available to the City of Macon in this court — if this lawsuit involves “agency action . . . committed to agency discretion by law.”

Section 1331 may provide jurisdiction over a direct Fourteenth Amendment claim even when the court has not yet determined whether the Constitution supplies the requested cause of action or remedy.

Farr v. Chesney · filed 1978-01-16

Although the Court has jurisdiction over Dr. Farr’s claims under the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ... the Court has not made a determination of whether Farr has stated a cause of action based independently upon the Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over an asserted implied cause of action under the Investment Advisers Act, so rejection of that cause belongs under failure to state a claim rather than lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,311 John M. Wilson v. First Houston Investment Corporation · filed 1978-02-02

The trial court stated that it was dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. According to the district court’s analysis, the complaint more properly should have been dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ... As pertains to the asserted cause of action under the IAA, general federal question jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1970).

Section 1331 is only a jurisdictional grant and does not itself create or imply a substantive cause of action for damages against a municipality.

Cale v. The City of Covington, Virginia · filed 1978-11-03

We need go no further than these elementary rules to arrive at our conclusion that the enactment of § 1331 did not of itself create any cause of action, nor do we think that one may be implied from the mere grant of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a claim whose alleged basis is a federal statute, even if the plaintiff ultimately has no enforceable statutory right.

Marcus Garvey Square, Inc. v. Winston Burnett Construction Co. of California, Inc. · filed 1979-01-18

With respect to the statutory theory, it is clear that the district court had jurisdiction. If this part of the suit had been filed in the district court as a separate action, the district court would have had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction, as the statute is the alleged basis of Burnett’s claim.

Section 1331(a) does not provide a jurisdictional predicate for a direct First Amendment claim when circuit law does not recognize such a direct cause of action.

Thomas v. BOARD OF ED., GRANVILLE CENTRAL SCH. · filed 1979-06-06(a)

At present, there is no basis for entertaining a claim for relief directly under the First Amendment with 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) as a jurisdictional predicate.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a substantial federal claim is not defeated merely because the complaint may fail to state a claim for relief.

Bush v. State Industries, Inc. · filed 1979-06-15

However, the fact that a complaint may not state a claim upon which relief can be granted is of no relevance to the question of subject matter jurisdiction. ... We conclude that the district court had federal subject matter jurisdiction over the case, whether or not Bush had an implied right to maintain an action under the Act.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a claim invoking the Federal Water Pollution Control Act even when the merits do not support mandamus relief.

Mount Joy Const. Co., Inc. v. Schramm · filed 1980-01-10

Defendant also challenged jurisdiction, which plaintiff predicated on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1361. Irrespective of the merits of plaintiff's claim for a writ of mandamus, plaintiff has invoked the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251, as the basis of jurisdiction. Defendant has not demonstrated lack of jurisdiction thereunder.

For Section 1331 purposes, whether a federal statute implies a private cause of action ordinarily is a merits question rather than a jurisdictional one, unless the asserted federal right is clearly immaterial and invoked solely to create jurisdiction.

Yates v. Island Creek Coal Co. · filed 1980-03-05

Whether plaintiffs have an implied cause of action under the statute is not a question of jurisdiction, however. ... If no other right had been asserted, then the action would have been dismissed on the grounds that the claim under the federal statute was clearly “immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction.”

A nonfrivolous constitutional claim gives a district court jurisdiction under Section 1331(a), even if the claim may later be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · filed 1980-06-16(a)

Once a plaintiff has alleged a nonfrivolous constitutional claim, the district court has jurisdiction under section 1331, and dismissal for want of jurisdiction is improper even if dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted would be proper.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a substantial federal statutory question is distinct from whether the governing statute supplies the plaintiff a cause of action.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. v. Virginia State Water Control Board · filed 1980-10-09

The Court’s July 29, 1980 memorandum addressed the issue as to whether the complaint presented a substantial federal question upon which jurisdiction could be premised pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The Court rejected this contention, and concluded that a federal question was raised by the claim that the State Board’s administration of its NPDES program did not conform to the requirements of the FWPCA. ... Jurisdiction, of course, refers to the Court’s power to entertain a controversy. ... In the Court’s opinion, the two issues are distinct and there was thus no inconsistency in the Court’s memorandum.

Section 1331(a) jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous claim arising under federal law is distinct from whether the complaint states a cognizable cause of action, which is a merits question.

Chesapeake Bay Village, Inc. v. Costle · filed 1980-10-29(a)

It should be noted initially that the issue of whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction is separate and distinct from the issue of whether plaintiff has stated a claim for which relief can be granted. ... A complaint may allege violations of rights “arising under” federal law sufficient for the court to assume jurisdiction, but at the same time fail to state a cognizable claim. If this is the case, the court “should take jurisdiction to decide the merits of the controversy, so long as the questions raised are not frivolous on their face.” ... Thus, if plaintiff’s suit is to be dismissed at all, it must be for failure to state a claim rather than for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution, although a claim may still be dismissed for failure to state a viable constitutional violation.

Cain v. Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kan. · filed 1981-03-03(a)

While we do not understand defendants’ argument that federal district courts do not have jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), we are unable to perceive, and plaintiff has not pointed out, any claim upon which relief may be granted as stated under the First, Fifth or Ninth Amendments.

Section 1331 gives a court jurisdiction to determine whether a complaint states a cause of action under federal commodities or securities law.

Walsh v. International Precious Metals Corp. · filed 1981-03-26

The court has jurisdiction to determine whether plaintiff has stated a cause of action under the Commodities Exchange Act (CEA) or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act) by virtue of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337 (1976).

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction to decide whether a complaint unambiguously founded on a federal statute and its regulations states a claim under federal law.

Pullman v. Chorney · filed 1981-03-02

Because the complaint in this case is unambiguously founded, ... on the ... federal statutory scheme in the MLA and the regulations promulgated pursuant to the MLA, it is clear and apparently uncontested that this Court has jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. section 1331, to determine whether the complaint states a claim under federal law upon which relief can be granted.

A noninsubstantial constitutional claim under Section 1331 should be dismissed for failure to state a claim rather than for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Womack v. Shell Chemical Co. · filed 1981-05-18

Since a claim based upon an implied remedy under the fourteenth amendment is not insubstantial, the proper procedure is dismissal for failure to state a claim rather than dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction turns on whether the asserted right arises under federal law, not whether federal law ultimately supplies a private remedy; a federally mandated labor-protective agreement creates a federal right sufficient for jurisdiction.

Local Division 1285, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Jackson Transit Authority · filed 1981-06-03

The District Court dismissed the case for lack of federal jurisdiction. We disagree both with the court’s analysis and its conclusion. ... Inasmuch as the “right asserted” in this case derives from a federal statute, we can only conclude that the Union’s claim “arises under” the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is not defeated by a possible failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Johnston v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co. · filed 1981-09-23

The Johnstons made the SBA a party to the action and asserted a claim against it. That action made jurisdiction in the Federal court proper. 15 U.S.C. § 634(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A possible failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted does not deprive the district court of Federal jurisdiction.

A Section 1331 claim should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction only when it is insubstantial and frivolous or immaterial and contrived; an attack on the existence of a federal cause of action otherwise goes to the merits.

Douglas W. Wohlfahrt, M.D. v. Memorial Medical Center · filed 1981-10-08

Acting upon the same findings, the court also dismissed Wohlfahrt’s action for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Wohlfahrt asserted that federal jurisdiction attached under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(1), (3) and (4). Dismissal of a claim for want of federal jurisdiction is appropriate only if it is insubstantial and frivolous or it is immaterial and made solely to contrive jurisdiction. ... “Where the defendant’s challenge to the court’s jurisdiction is also a challenge to the existence of a federal cause of action, the proper course of action for the district court ... is to find that jurisdiction exists and deal with the objection as a direct attack on the merits of the plaintiff’s case.”

A complaint invoking a federal statute presents Section 1331 jurisdiction even if the statute ultimately affords no damages remedy; that defect goes to the merits, not jurisdiction.

Fogel v. Chestnutt · filed 1981-12-17(a)

This argument is simply one more instance of the fallacy, to which courts as well as counsel have not been immune, of confusing the question whether a court has jurisdiction with the question whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted. ... If in fact the statutes relied upon by the plaintiffs did not authorize recovery of damages because of violations of the sort alleged, the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and was subject to dismissal upon that ground.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists over a constitutional claim that is not wholly insubstantial and frivolous, even if the complaint ultimately fails to state a claim for relief.

Harris v. Arizona Board of Regents · filed 1981-12-23

Since these claims cannot be said to be “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” federal question jurisdiction exists under § 1331. ... Even though the alleged constitutional violations provide another avenue of § 1331 jurisdiction over the Board, it is a separate matter whether the complaint states a constitutionally based claim upon which relief may be granted. As the Ninth Circuit has stated, “the existence of a cause of action is conceptually distinct from the presence of jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 jurisdiction over an attempted federal claim is distinct from whether the complaint states a viable cause of action, which is a merits question.

Home Health Services, Inc. v. Currie · filed 1982-01-25(a)

The test for determining the existence of a federal question under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441 and the test for determining the existence of a viable claim under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(6) and 56(b) are entirely separate and distinct. ... The question of whether plaintiff has stated a claim under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(6) has no effect on the question of whether the claim that plaintiff has attempted to state raises issues of federal law. Thus, the present case falls within the subject matter jurisdiction of this court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous complaint claiming a federal right so the court can determine whether federal law actually provides a cause of action.

Jackson Transit Authority v. Local Division 1285, Amalgamated Transit Union · filed 1982-06-07

Thus, we agree with the Court of Appeals that, strictly speaking, the District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 to hear the union’s suit. ... Thus, the District Court had jurisdiction for the purposes of determining whether the union stated a cause of action on which relief could be granted.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a federal statutory claim presenting a substantial dispute about the statute's proper construction, even if the claim ultimately fails for lack of a private right of action.

T. J. Fountain, Jr., Individually and Doing Business as Fountain Oil Company v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Autho · filed 1982-06-18

... The district court had jurisdiction over this claim, however, pursuant to the general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, for it is evident that the claim involves a substantial dispute over the proper construction of the Act.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a claim arising under federal law is not defeated merely because the federal statute may not create a private cause of action.

Carson v. Pierce · filed 1982-06-30

The Court has jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to the general federal question jurisdictional provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the claim arises under federal law. ... The Court's jurisdiction is not defeated by the possibility that a private cause of action does not exist under the Act.

Section 1331(a) supplied subject-matter jurisdiction over the federal information-law claims even though they were dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Leib v. Veterans Administration · filed 1982-09-07(a)

The motion asserts a “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” as its basis, but its thrust is one of failure to state a claim. The Court concludes, for the record, that it has subject matter jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C., Section 552(a)(4)(B), 552a(g)(l) and 28 U.S.C., Section 1331(a), but grants the motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists over a well-pleaded federal claim even if the claimant may ultimately have no federal right.

Charrier v. Bell · filed 1982-09-09

Federal jurisdiction exists if the complaint states a case arising under federal law, even though on the merits the party may have no federal right.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over constitutional, Section 1983, and APA claims even when the court ultimately finds that the complaint states no valid cause of action.

Edwards v. District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation · filed 1987-06-12

Plaintiffs’ § 1983, APA, and constitutional claims quite clearly arise under the Constitution and federal laws, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, cited by plaintiffs as a source of jurisdiction along with § 1337. Thus, the court clearly had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, even though no valid cause of action was ultimately found.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists when a complaint alleges facts sufficient to support a substantial federal civil-rights claim, and an eventual defense verdict does not retroactively defeat jurisdiction.

Hughes v. Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n of New York, Inc. · filed 1988-06-15

Thus, viewing the complaint on its face, it alleged facts sufficient to establish — assuming the facts were proven — a violation of § 1983. In light of this, the district court properly rejected appellants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss made prior to trial for want of federal subject matter jurisdiction and correctly held that jurisdiction existed either pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1343. ... Plainly, a federal claim need not be one guaranteed to succeed to gain entrance to a federal forum.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to determine whether federal common law supplies an ERISA cause of action, even if the asserted cause of action may ultimately be invalid.

Airco Industrial Gases, Inc. v. The Teamsters Health And Welfare Pension Fund Of Philadelphia And Vicinity · filed 1988-06-30

The question of whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to this statute is not whether Airco had a valid cause of action against the Fund under federal common law. Rather, the subject matter jurisdiction analysis is one of whether the determination of the existence vel non of that cause of action is a question "arising under the ... laws ... of the United States." ... Thus, while the district court did not elaborate on why subject matter jurisdiction exists, we agree with its conclusion that section 1331 conferred upon it subject matter jurisdiction to determine the existence of a federal common law cause of action based on unjust enrichment.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is distinct from whether a complaint ultimately states a claim; pleaded federal statutory or constitutional claims establish jurisdiction unless clearly immaterial, jurisdictionally contrived, or wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Holland/blue Streak, a Joint Venture, Blue Streak Transportation, Inc. v. Sidney J. Barthelemy, as Mayor of the City of · filed 1988-07-22

The scope of federal subject matter jurisdiction is not coextensive with the existence of a cause of action. District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... A federal court may have subject matter jurisdiction even though the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. ... Only if the federal statute or constitutional provision invoked is clearly immaterial and is invoked solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or if the claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous will subject matter jurisdiction be found lacking.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction to hear a challenge to a state's compliance with federal law even when the availability of a Section 1983 cause of action remains disputed.

West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey · filed 1988-11-30

Defendants also contend the Hospital does not have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 to assert defendants’ violations of the Social Security Act. As plaintiff points out, defendants do not challenge the court’s jurisdiction to hear a challenge to the state’s compliance with federal law; the court has jurisdiction to hear such challenges pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1331. Rather, defendants raise a question as to whether the remedy of a section 1983 cause of action is available.

When federal-question jurisdiction is an element of the federal claim, the court should entertain jurisdiction and decide the intertwined issue as a merits question, using summary judgment if evidence is submitted.

Bailey v. J.W.K. Properties, Inc. · filed 1989-01-09

However, when subject matter jurisdiction is an element of a plaintiff’s federal claim, the court should entertain jurisdiction and decide the jurisdictional issue as though that issue were the basis of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. If evidence is submitted in support of or in opposition thereto, the court may treat the motion as one for summary judgment.

Section 1331 subject-matter jurisdiction exists when a complaint purports to state a nonfrivolous federal claim, even if a merits or standing issue may defeat the claim.

Steffan v. Cheney · filed 1989-07-21

Unlike the MSPB, this Court is not automatically precluded from considering plaintiffs claim if the resignation was voluntary. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction if the complaint purports to state a nonfrivolous claim under federal law.

An ADEA protected-class requirement is an element of the federal claim rather than a prerequisite to Section 1331 subject-matter jurisdiction.

Anderson v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · filed 1989-09-26

Assuming defendant’s contention that plaintiff must show he is at least 40 years old to assert a retaliation claim under the ADEA, the court finds that the alleged age requirement would not be a requirement for subject matter jurisdiction, but simply a necessary element of a claim under the ADEA.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to adjudicate a reasonable federal statutory claim and to preserve the status quo by injunction pending a merits decision, even if the claim ultimately fails.

Aradia Women's Health Center v. Operation Rescue · filed 1991-04-05

Whether there was or was not, on the merits, a conspiracy to violate appellees' constitutional rights in violation of section 1985 is not before us. ... Accordingly, the only issue properly before us concerns the district court's subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether there had been a violation of section 1985. Such subject matter jurisdiction in the nature of federal question jurisdiction existed beyond doubt by virtue of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. Once the plaintiffs had made at least a reasonable claim that the statute applied, the district court had the power to preserve the status quo through injunction pending its final determination on the merits of that claim.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a claim arising under federal law even when the plaintiff fails to establish a condition required for recovery.

B.J. Alan Co., Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (Ohio) · filed 1991-12-10

We are satisfied that the matter before the district court was ripe for judicial determination on the merits. The district court obtained jurisdiction under its federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and as a claim arising under an act of Congress regulating commerce, 28 U.S.C. § 1337. The plaintiffs merely failed, after full administrative and judicial review, to establish a necessary condition precedent to recovery, i.e., an ICC determination of unlawfulness.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over nonfrivolous federal securities and RICO claims even when whether the challenged investments are covered by federal law remains a merits question.

Wuliger v. Gilbert · filed 2003-05-16

In this instance, the nonfrivolous assertions by Plaintiffs counsel submits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under federal securities laws as well as for violations of RICO. To accept Plaintiffs argument regarding the status of the viati-cáis does not vitiate the district court’s jurisdiction to decide this issue at a later time in this litigation. ... In sum, the Plaintiff clearly has stated a cause of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a colorable federal statutory claim even if the plaintiff ultimately fails to prove that the statute covers the disputed conduct.

Baykeeper v. Cargill Salt Division · filed 2007-03-07

That colorable allegation clearly gave the district court jurisdiction over the case, see 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a), 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and we have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Baykeeper’s failure to establish that Cargill’s Pond was a water of the United States is a failure to make out a case, not a failure to establish the jurisdiction of the court.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over a non-frivolous claim arising under the Administrative Procedure Act even if the claim ultimately fails on the merits.

Sutton v. Napolitano · filed 2013-11-15

Having plausibly pled that his claim “arises under” the APA, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to consider the claim, even if it ultimately fails on the merits.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a substantial federal claim even when its factual allegations fail to state a plausible claim for relief.

Davis v. Yeroushalmi · filed 2013-12-02

But, that these claims “might ultimately be unsuccessful on [the] merits” is not a basis for dismissal on grounds of subject matter jurisdiction. ... The defendants’ motion to dismiss on this basis is therefore denied.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous allegation of an ADA violation even if the complaint may fail to state a claim.

Gogos v. AMS-Mechanical System, Incorpo · filed 2013-12-16

A frivolous allegation of a violation of federal law will not engage the subject-matter jurisdiction of a federal court. See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–38 (1974). But Gogos properly invoked federal jurisdiction by alleging that his former employer violated the ADA when it fired him because of his blood-pressure problems. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Bovee v. Broom, 732 F.3d 743, 744 (7th Cir. 2013).

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous claim requiring construction of federal law even if the court rejects the plaintiff’s construction.

Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California · filed 2014-01-21

A claim depending on a particular construction of federal law falls within this federal- question jurisdiction, even if the court ultimately rejects the plaintiff’s construction. ... A claim for negotiations under IGRA, by definition, arises under a law of the United States. Big Lagoon’s claim is neither immaterial nor frivolous.

Under Section 1331, the absence of an ERISA-qualified plan defeats an ERISA claim on the merits but does not deprive the court of federal-question jurisdiction.

McVey ex rel. Bittersweet Distributors, Inc. v. McVey ex rel. Estate of McVey · filed 2014-06-16

Accordingly, the fact that the plan at issue is not ERISA qualifies means that plaintiffs claims fail on the merits,, but does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331 over Title VII and FLSA claims does not depend on a defendant’s status as an employer, which is an element of the merits.

Gilbert v. Freshbikes, LLC · filed 2014-07-09

Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is therefore misplaced as to Title VII, and the question of their status as Plaintiffs’ employer is better suited to a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis, as the question implicates the merits of Plaintiffs claim. ... Consequently, whether a defendant is an employer as defined by the FLSA is an element of the plaintiffs meritorious FLSA claim and does not implicate subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction exists over a substantial, non-frivolous claim under ERISA § 502(a)(3) even when the requested relief is unavailable and the claim fails on the merits.

Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Health & Welfare Fund v. Bollinger, Inc. · filed 2014-07-15

We think, however, that the District Court in this case had jurisdiction but that Central States’ claim fails on the merits. See Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Price, 501 F.3d 271, 276-77 (3d Cir. 2007) (noting that a substantial, non-frivolous claim for relief under section 502(a)(3) is enough to confer subject matter jurisdiction).

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction over a non-frivolous federal claim even if the claim lacks merit.

Coltharp v. Herrera · filed 2014-07-29

We reject Herrera’s contention that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs asserted federal claims in their pleadings and, consequently, there is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 even if the Plaintiffs’ claims are not meritorious.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous FLSA claim even if enterprise coverage cannot ultimately be established, because coverage is a merits element rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite.

Rocha v. Bakhter Afghan Halal Kababs, Inc. · filed 2014-09-15

However, whether Plaintiffs can establish coverage is an element of Plaintiffs’ claim and is not determinative of the Court’s jurisdiction. ... Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1331, seeks relief pursuant to a federal law, the FLSA. Defendants do not argue, and there is nothing to suggest, that the FLSA claim is immaterial, made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction, or is wholly insubstantial or frivolous. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint “arises under” the laws of the United States, and because it does, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction over an FLSA claim even when statutory commerce coverage is disputed, because that requirement concerns the merits rather than jurisdiction.

Domineck v. One Stop Auto Shop, Inc. · filed 2014-09-17

The Court concludes that the Defendant’s argument is an attack on the merits of the Plaintiffs claim, not on this Court’s jurisdiction to entertain it. ... Here, the Plaintiff has asserted a claim under the FLSA — a federal statute — and so this case “arises under” federal law.

Federal-question jurisdiction over an ERISA claim is not defeated by an objection that the plaintiff seeks only legal relief, because that objection concerns the merits.

Weigandt v. Farm Bureau General Insurance · filed 2014-10-09

But even if that is true in this case, subject matter jurisdiction is not affected. The Sixth Circuit has warned that attacks on the merits should not be confounded with jurisdictional challenges, admonishing courts to be more exacting when addressing challenges that are phrased as an attack on jurisdiction. ... The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claim for declaratory and injunctive relief under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1) and (3).

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 is not defeated merely because claims arising under federal law or the Constitution are likely to fail on the merits.

Xia v. Kerry · filed 2014-11-12

As discussed, this Court has federal question jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims arising under federal law and the United States Constitution, and we do not decline jurisdiction on the basis that plaintiffs’ claims are likely without merit. Such issues are properly considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over a claim arising under federal law even when the defendant disputes whether that law applies to him or his conduct, a question going to the merits.

New York v. Mountain Tobacco Co. · filed 2014-12-16

However, Wheeler cites no authority, and this Court has uncovered none, for the proposition that whether a defendant is “an Indian in Indian Country” under the CCTA constitutes a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing such a claim. ... Here, the State’s claim under the CCTA, a federal statute, clearly raises an issue of federal law as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Accordingly, the Court denies that part of Wheeler’s motion to dismiss the CCTA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction over an ERISA claim does not depend on whether the plan falls within a statutory exemption, which is a merits question.

Stapleton v. Advocate Health Care Network · filed 2014-12-31

Although Advocate premises its motion to dismiss on both a failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and a lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), only the former is at play here. ... The test then for Plaintiffs’ complaint is not whether it properly •invokes jurisdiction, which it does, but rather whether it states a plausible right to relief in light of Advocate’s claimed church plan exemption.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 is not defeated by a factual challenge to an element of the federal cause of action, which must be resolved on the merits.

Vantu v. Echo Recovery, LLC · filed 2015-02-12

Whether Echo is, in fact, a debt collector goes to the merits of Vantu’s FDCPA claim, not my power to adjudicate that claim.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over an FLSA claim despite a potential motor carrier exemption, because that exemption concerns the merits rather than jurisdiction.

McLeland v. 1845 Oil Field Services · filed 2015-03-16

Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because questions about the application of the FMCA exemption to an FLSA claim are not jurisdictional and are appropriately handled at the merits stage.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a well-pleaded complaint alleging governmental deprivation of constitutional property rights even when the claims ultimately fail on the merits.

Cecort Realty Development, Inc. v. Llompart-Zeno · filed 2015-04-24

Before proceeding any further, we find that the court has jurisdiction, even to eventually dismiss the § 1983 complaint on the merits. ... We find that Ce-cort pleaded the federal complaint in a way that adequately invoked federal jurisdiction only to lose on the merits.

Federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331 over a Rehabilitation Act claim does not depend on whether the defendant receives federal financial assistance.

Runnion Ex Rel. Rsunnion v. Girl Scouts of Greater Chicago · filed 2015-05-08

All parties now agree (correctly) that whether the Girl Scouts receive federal financial assistance has no effect on subject-matter jurisdiction and that federal-question jurisdic- tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is proper.

Section 1331 grants jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, but that jurisdiction does not itself supply a cognizable claim for relief.

Hairston v. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · filed 2024-10-07

Likewise for 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court fully embraces the fact that it has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. That principal operates independently from the question of whether Plaintiff's Amended Complaint states any cognizable claim on which such a civil action may proceed.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a complaint alleging Fifth Amendment violations even when the claim’s merits and the defendants’ immunity remain unresolved.

Weir v. Muller · filed 1976-02-25

We hold that the district court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and should not have dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

A challenge to the adequacy of a nonfrivolous federal claim’s pleading is decided under Rule 12(b)(6), rather than as a subject-matter jurisdiction challenge under Rule 12(b)(1).

Providence Title Company v. Truly Title, Inc. · filed 2021-07-01

Accordingly, a defendant challenging the adequacy of a plaintiff’s pleading of a nonfrivolous, federal cause of action must move under Rule 12(b)(6), not Rule 12(b)(1).

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a complaint facially alleging a RCRA violation, so a challenge to whether the materials qualify as solid waste is reviewed under Rule 12(b)(6).

Citizens Coal Council v. Matt Canestrale Contracting, Inc. · filed 2014-09-30

The reiteration of part of Section 6972(a)(1)(B) in the paragraph conferring jurisdiction upon the federal district courts is just that — a reiteration — not a condition precedent to the district court exercising subject matter jurisdiction. As the Amended Complaint on its face alleges a violation of a federal statute — the RCRA — this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Accordingly, the Court will review MCC’s motion to dismiss under the Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard.

Section 1331 requires a district court to assume federal-question jurisdiction and decide the merits when disputed facts determining jurisdiction also determine the merits of a substantial federal claim.

Worldwide Parking, Inc. v. New Orleans City · filed 2005-02-17

The district court’s resolution of the factual issue of whether the contract called for mostly professional services precluded federal jurisdiction because it doomed Worldwide’s federal claim on the merits. In such a case, the rule of Bell v. Hood requires the district court to assume jurisdiction and decide the case on the merits.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction can exist even when a federal claim is dismissed on the merits.

Monica L. McDowell Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church Will Ackles · filed 2004-07-23

A Rule 12 judgment on the pleadings is not equivalent to a dismissal for failure to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and a judgment on the pleadings may be appropriate even when federal question jurisdiction is established.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous federal claim even if the claim ultimately fails on the merits.

United States of America Ex Rel. John Fallon v. Accudyne Corporation and Alliant Techsystems, Inc. · filed 1996-10-03

The possibility that § 3730(b) is unconstitutional does not knock out subject-matter jurisdiction. To do that, Accudyne would have to show that §§ 1331, 1345, and 3732(a) are unconstitutional, and it hasn’t even tried. Accudyne is oblivious to the fundamental distinction between jurisdiction and the merits. Unless the relators’ claim was weaker than frivolous (and the district court’s decisions show that it was not), the court had jurisdiction even if Accudyne would have prevailed in the end.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an ERISA claim even when the defendant is not an ERISA employer and the claim therefore fails on the merits.

Bleiler v. Cristwood Construction, Inc. · filed 1995-12-08

We do quibble with the district court's conclusion that the ERISA claim should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction rather than under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The conclusion that neither Cristwood nor NIC are statutory employers merely reflects the lack of a remedy against them under federal law, not the lack of a federal question.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction to decide whether a nonfrivolous claim arising under federal law states a cause of action, even when the claim ultimately fails on the merits.

Johnson v. Lark · filed 1973-07-13

The complaint plainly alleges that the matter in controversy arises under a law of the United States: 18 U.S. C. § 4002. The claim is not immaterial to the statute or insubstantial and frivolous. Therefore, this court concludes that it has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to determine whether Count II of the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted or to determine the issues of fact arising in the controversy.

Section 1331 jurisdiction attaches when a complaint alleges that a federal administrator breached a federal statutory duty, even if examination of the statute later shows that the complaint fails to state a claim on the merits.

City of Highland Park v. Train · filed 1974-03-25

The general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, confers upon district courts original jurisdiction of suits arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... Plaintiffs’ allegations that the Administrator has breached a statutory duty owed to them under the Clean Air Act Amendments ... clearly bring the complaint within the purview of the general federal question statute and require an examination of the Clean Air Act to determine whether the claims are well-founded. ... In light of the foregoing, plaintiffs’ complaint, insofar as it is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331, must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

An alleged violation of federal law confers Section 1331 jurisdiction even when the federal statute ultimately provides no express or implied private cause of action and the complaint fails on the merits.

Savini Construction Co. v. Crooks Bros. Construction Co. · filed 1974-12-19

The alleged violation of federal law conferred federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 681-682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946). However, the district court concluded that such a private cause of action by a disappointed bidder against a successful bidder for violation of the criminal provisions of the Small Business Act was neither expressly authorized by nor could be inferred from the Act.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is not defeated merely because the federal claim may fail to state a claim for relief; that question is resolved on the merits after jurisdiction is assumed.

Jamison v. Butcher & Sherrerd · filed 1975-10-16

We are now convinced that jurisdiction does properly lie in this court under 15 U.S.C. § 78aa and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. If ... does indeed bar plaintiffs’ claim, a question on which we express no opinion, then the complaint is dismissable under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. However, such a dismissal calls for judgment on the merits after the court has assumed jurisdiction.

When a complaint facially invokes federal law, Section 1331 requires the court to assume jurisdiction and decide entitlement to relief on the merits rather than treating a possible failure to state a claim as a jurisdictional defect.

Scottsdale Mall v. State of Indiana · filed 1976-04-02

Federal courts have been empowered by Congress to take original jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... On the face of the complaint plaintiff has sufficiently invoked general federal jurisdiction requiring the Court to examine the pertinent parts of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Aid Highway Act to determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

Section 1331 requires a federally conferred right, but the court must entertain a claim invoking federal law unless its jurisdictional basis is wholly insubstantial and frivolous, even if the claim ultimately fails on the merits.

Knauss v. Gorman · filed 1977-06-28

The claim that this cause of action'is based upon a question arising under the constitution and laws of the United States as well as a claim that it is based upon 1337 conferring jurisdiction on the district courts of civil actions or proceedings arising under any act of Congress regulating commerce begs the question. Unless it is shown the rights are conferred by some piece of federal legislation then these sections do not ... operate to bring the plaintiff’s case within the ambit of the powers of the federal court. ... It teaches us that a district court must entertain a suit unless the basis for jurisdiction is wholly insubstantial and frivolous. We cannot say that in this case, plaintiff’s case is wholly insubstantial and frivolous and we therefore hold that this court has jurisdiction because of alleged structural faults in the trust and will proceed to dispose of the matter upon the merits.

A district court has Section 1331 jurisdiction to decide whether federal allegations state a claim when the questions are substantial and not frivolous on their face; failure on the merits does not defeat jurisdiction.

Donohoe Construction Co. v. Montgomery County Council · filed 1977-12-20

There the court held that, where a complainant raises allegations which may or may not state federal claim, a district court should take jurisdiction to decide the merits of the controversy so long as the questions raised are not frivolous on their face. Here, Donohoe’s complaint raises a substantial question as to the limitations placed on the state condemnation and zoning powers by the fourteenth amendment. Consequently, under the doctrine of ... the district court acted properly in assuming jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A nonfrivolous direct Fourteenth Amendment claim against a municipality supplies Section 1331 jurisdiction and permits adjudication of related claims even if the federal claim may fail on the merits.

Glover v. City of New York · filed 1978-02-16

So long as a claim for federal relief is not frivolous, the action arises under federal law for purposes of § 1331 and the federal court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim that a federal right of recovery exists. ... the allegations are not frivolous or patently insufficient. ... this court has the power to adjudicate all the claims set forth in the amended complaint.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to decide whether a complaint states a direct constitutional cause of action, even if the complaint is ultimately dismissed on the merits.

Torres v. Taylor · filed 1978-09-01(a)

Defendants also challenge the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction in this case, but the Court clearly has jurisdiction to decide whether plaintiff’s complaint presents a cause of action under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments.

Section 1331 confers subject-matter jurisdiction over a colorable federal environmental claim even when alleged lack of final agency action or ripeness may require dismissal on the merits.

Environmental Defense Fund Inc. v. Johnson · filed 1979-08-03

There can be no doubt that this case “arises under” both NEPA and the other federal environmental legislation cited in the text accompanying note 1, and that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers subject matter jurisdiction upon the court. ... Since the APA is not an independent grant of subject matter jurisdiction, ... the alleged lack of finality under Section 10(c) certainly cannot deprive this court of jurisdiction to entertain plaintiffs’ colorable claim under NEPA.

When a complaint alleges a federal warranty claim, Section 1331 jurisdiction exists even if the claim may later fail on the merits because the product falls outside the statute.

Balser v. Cessna Aircraft Co. · filed 1981-04-30

The Court finds subject matter jurisdiction based on the allegations found in the complaint. Consequently, the Court converts defendant’s motion to one under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

Section 1331 supports removal when the complaint pleads colorable causes of action under a federal treaty or federal aviation statutes, regardless of whether those claims ultimately survive on the merits.

Brunwasser v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · filed 1981-08-06

Therefore we conclude that plaintiff has pleaded colorable claims of federal causes of action justifying removal to the United States District Court. It must be noted that the judgment of this court is based on the assertion of these claims in the Complaint, and is no indication of their merit or their ability to survive more specific attack.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists when the plaintiff makes a federal agency a party and asserts a claim against it; possible failure of that claim on the merits does not defeat jurisdiction.

Phillip W.. Johnston v. Citizens Bank & Trust Company Of Flippin, Arkansas · filed 1981-09-23

The Johnstons made the SBA a party to the action and asserted a claim against it. That action made jurisdiction in the Federal court proper. ... A possible failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted does not deprive the district court of Federal jurisdiction.

Under Section 1331, whether challenged private conduct constitutes federal action goes to the merits of a constitutional claim rather than the threshold inquiry into subject-matter jurisdiction.

Nguyen v. United States Catholic Conference · filed 1982-10-08

Defendants assert that this Court is without jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment because the claim does not arise under the United States Constitution within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Specifically, Defendants maintain that they have not engaged in federal action which, according to their argument, is necessary for subject matter jurisdiction. ... Plaintiffs respond that this Court does have jurisdiction under § 1331. They contend that the presence or absence of federal action is not relevant to subject matter jurisdiction. Rather, according to Plaintiffs, the existence of federal action relates to the question of whether Plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. ... We agree with Plaintiffs that the existence of federal action is not relevant to the threshold inquiry of subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, the presence or absence of federal action depends on the facts of the case and must be decided after the Court has assumed jurisdiction over the controversy.

A Section 1331 claim seeking to enjoin state officials from violating federal law ordinarily must be accepted as jurisdictionally sufficient and decided on the merits unless it is immaterial, jurisdictionally contrived, or wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Brennan v. Stewart · filed 1988-01-07

The district court's jurisdictional dismissal of Mr. Brennan's claims for injunctive relief was error.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a motor carrier’s federal filed-tariff undercharge claim even when a binding ICC ruling supplies an unassailable merits defense; preclusion requires judgment on the merits, not jurisdictional dismissal.

West Coast Truck Lines, Inc., an Oregon Corporation v. American Industries, Inc., Dba American Steel, an Oregon Corporat · filed 1990-01-08

The district court had jurisdiction over West Coast’s complaint at the time it was filed because a claim for undercharges arises under federal law. ... The district court dismissed this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. That ruling was erroneous. The district court had federal question jurisdiction over West Coast’s complaint for payment of the undercharges. ... The doctrine of res judicata bars any recovery as a matter of law because of the ICC’s determination of unreasonableness. Accordingly, the district court should have granted summary judgment in favor of American Industries.

The absence of a private federal cause of action defeats the claim on the merits rather than eliminating Section 1331 subject-matter jurisdiction when the complaint nonfrivolously invokes federal law.

Howard v. Milam · filed 1990-05-10

Rather than ruling, as did the district court, that in these circumstances subject matter jurisdiction was facially lacking, mandating summary dismissal, we hold that Howard's complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief can be granted and affirm the district court's dismissal on that basis.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is not defeated merely because the federal claim ultimately fails to state a claim for relief; that defect is decided on the merits under Rule 12(b)(6).

Theus v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. · filed 1990-06-11

Because plaintiffs allege subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and not 28 U.S.C. § 1343, the 12(b)(1) motion will be treated as a 12(b)(6) motion.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous claim asserting a federal right even when the complaint ultimately fails on the merits because no implied cause of action exists.

Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc. v. Pegues · filed 1990-06-28

Whether a court has the power to decide a lawsuit is a question of jurisdiction. Whether the complaint states a claim for which relief may be granted is a question of the merits of the suit.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists when a nonfrivolous claim requires interpreting federal law, even if the federal claim ultimately fails to state a claim on the merits.

Migliori v. Calise · filed 1990-10-30

A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 if the claimed “right or immunity ... [is] such that it will be supported if the Constitution or laws of the United States are given one construction or effect, and defeated if they receive another.” ... Because plaintiffs’ federal claim raises issues regarding the interpretation of a federal statute, there is a sufficient federal question to retain jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction over a completely preempted ERISA action is not lost merely because the claimant lacks participant status or substantive rights under ERISA; that defect requires dismissal on the merits rather than remand.

Martin v. General Motors Corp. · filed 1991-01-02

It also follows from this analysis that the Court does not lack federal question jurisdiction over this case, and there is, therefore, no need to remand the case to state court simply because the Court has found that Martin lacks “standing” to bring this ERISA enforcement action. ... Consequently, the Court’s determination here that Martin is not entitled to recover under ERISA constitutes a decision on the merits, and the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice.

A substantial claim about the effect of federal regulations supports Section 1331 jurisdiction even though the court ultimately holds that the regulations create no private cause of action and dismisses the claim on the merits.

Evansville Cement Finishers, Inc. v. Village of New Haven · filed 1991-06-28

The Court held that Count I of the complaint stated a substantial federal question, and therefore jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Having determined that Count I fails to state a cause of action, the Court must now consider whether it will exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining, purely state law claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a claim grounded in federal law even when the asserted federal right of action fails on the merits, unless the federal claim is frivolous or wholly insubstantial.

Henslin v. Kennedy Transportation Services · filed 1997-12-02

This is a federal question, and thus the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 95 F.3d 959, 964 (10th Cir.1996). However, dismissal of a complaint that alleges a federal claim is justified only if the claim is " 'so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit' or 'frivolous.' " Id. (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 199 (1962)). Although Henslin's claim is without merit, we believe it does assert a claim grounded in a federal question under the ICA. Accordingly, we believe the district court erred in dismissing the claim for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies subject matter jurisdiction over federal claims even when the claims may fail on the merits.

John Roe I v. Bridgestone Corp. · filed 2007-06-26

The court has subject matter jurisdiction over these claims based on general federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, regardless of whether plaintiffs have alleged viable claims on the merits.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a pleaded ERISA claim even if the benefit plan is exempt from ERISA, because the exemption bears on the merits rather than jurisdiction.

Perisic v. Kim · filed 2019-10-24

The question of whether the plan is governed by ERISA relates to the merits of Ms. Perisic’s case, and that question has no bearing on the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to decide a federal claim stated in a well-pleaded complaint even if the claim might fail on the merits.

Carrasquillo-Serrano v. Municipality of Canovanas · filed 2021-03-12

The possibility that Canovanas would have succeeded on a motion to dismiss the EMTALA claims does not mean the district court lacked federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a federal claim even if it fails to state a claim, unless the claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Doe 1 v. American Federation of Government Employees · filed 2021-08-11

This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the LMRDA claims in Count 6 because they arise under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although the Court ultimately agrees with defendants that Count 6 fails to state a claim, Count 6 is not so “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” that jurisdiction is lacking, as defendants suggest, see Joint Mot. to Dismiss at 18.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over an attempted federal claim even when the claim as pleaded lacks merit.

Johnson v. Redstone Federal Credit Union · filed 2023-02-08

Though the Johnsons’ federal claims as pleaded do not have merit, the Johnsons’ attempts to assert a RICO claim and a claim under the Dodd-Frank Act suffice to trigger this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction when the complaint asserts a federal claim, even if the defendant disputes the claim’s merits.

Dental Health Services Inc v. Miller · filed 2023-04-06

Nevertheless, the Court is satisfied at this point that it has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on the assertion of the federal claim in the complaint even if Defendants dispute the claim’s merits.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a personal injury claim arising on a reservation under exclusive federal jurisdiction because the governing law there is federal law.

William M. Stokes, Jr. v. Adair · filed 1959-04-08

It is clear from these decisions that after the cession of jurisdiction to the United States the laws of the state not inconsistent with the transfer are still vital to fix the private rights of persons in the ceded area; but that they lose their character as laws of the state and become laws of the Union, and this transformation is implicit in the transfer of legislative jurisdiction without express act of Congress. ... We are of the opinion that the District Court had jurisdiction of the ... pending case both under the general rule of law applicable when exclusive jurisdiction over territory is ceded by a state to the United States, and also under the express provisions of the act of February 1, 1928, 16 U.S.C.A. § 457.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to decide whether a federal statute implies a private cause of action so long as that federal question is not frivolous.

Hartman v. Farmers Production Credit Ass'n · filed 1983-03-18

As long as the question is not frivolous, the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to decide this issue.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a constitutional claim against federal officers does not require proof of the violation unless the claim is immaterial, jurisdictionally contrived, wholly insubstantial, or frivolous.

Foster v. Tourtellotte · filed 1983-04-26

The district court properly exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction). A claim of constitutional violation need not be proven to establish jurisdiction; a federal court has jurisdiction over a claim that federal officers violated the Constitution unless the claim “clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”

Section 1331 gives jurisdiction over a federal statutory claim even when the complaint ultimately fails to state a claim on the merits.

Fallis v. Ambach · filed 1983-06-10

Although we too find that appellants did not make a sufficient showing as to the second prong of the test, we do not base that conclusion on lack of jurisdiction. Rather, finding that the district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Supp. V 1981) and 20 U.S.C. § 1415, we conclude that appellants did not demonstrate either likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of their section 1415 claim in that they failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over federal civil-rights claims is distinct from whether those claims are frivolous and subject to dismissal on the merits.

Zernial v. United States of America · filed 1983-09-12

The district court did have jurisdiction over those claims, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 (Supp. V 1981), but they were subject to dismissal even under the Second Circuit rule because they were frivolous.

Federal tax-law claims support Section 1331 jurisdiction unless insubstantial or frivolous; losing on the merits does not eliminate jurisdiction.

Tierney v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services. Ava P. Trahan v. Donald T. Regan, Sec · filed 1983-09-20

the legal claims in this case “arise under” laws of the United States, specifically section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code. We cannot agree with the district court that the claims are so insubstantial or frivolous as to allow for dismissal. ... The district court appears to have merged the substantiality requirement with a determination on the merits. But, “[j]urisdiction is not lost because the court ultimately concludes that the federal claim is without merit.”

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction when the complaint asserts an affirmative federal right; a weak federal claim must be rejected on the merits rather than dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Greene v. Costle · filed 1983-10-31

That is, the complaint states a claim arising under federal law and invokes the rule that federal jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 where the complaint raises a federal question. If a § 1331 plaintiff has a bad claim, the judgment is to be given against him on the merits, and even if the court is persuaded at the outset that federal law does not give the right a party claims, it is to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, rather than for want of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction may exist over a colorable federal claim even when the complaint ultimately fails to state a federal claim for relief.

R.J. Williams Company, Richard J. Williams and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. Fort Belknap Housing Authority · filed 1983-10-31

We conclude that, although the district court properly exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, appellees have stated no federal claim for which relief can be granted.

Section 1331 jurisdiction ordinarily exists to decide whether a federal statute implies a private right of action; absence of that private right goes to the merits unless the federal claim is immaterial, insubstantial, or frivolous.

Student Government Ass'n of Wilberforce University v. Wilberforce University · filed 1983-12-28

In fact, the presence or absence of a private right of action in most instances does not go to the question of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction, but rather calls for a judgment on the merits of a plaintiff’s claim. ... Where the defendant’s challenge to the court’s jurisdiction is also a challenge to the existence of a federal cause of action, the proper course of action for the district court (assuming that the plaintiff’s federal claim is not immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining federal jurisdiction and is not insubstantial and frivolous) is to find that jurisdiction exists and deal with the objection as a direct attack on the merits of the plaintiff’s case.

Section 1331 covers National Bank Act claims without an amount-in-controversy requirement, and a federal statutory defense defeating recovery does not eliminate subject-matter jurisdiction.

Fourchon, Inc. v. Louisiana National Leasing Corporation · filed 1984-01-23

A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction would have been inappropriate here. It has long been settled that suits under sections 85 and 86 of the National Bank Act, and the predecessors of those sections, “are federal question cases.” ... We note that although 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was the only basis of jurisdiction pleaded, when this suit was filed the amount in controversy requirement had been removed from section 1331. The district court’s determination that section 926(d) of the Preferred Ship Mortgage Act precluded recovery under the National Bank Act did not deprive the court of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists over a nonfrivolous federal statutory claim even when the statute ultimately supplies no private cause of action, requiring dismissal on the merits rather than for lack of jurisdiction.

Freedman v. Meldy's, Inc. · filed 1984-02-28

Because plaintiff's claim under the FTCA was not frivolous, I have determined there is subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint but have determined it must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ... Further, the ruling that there is jurisdiction under section 1331 but no cause of action stated moots the jurisdiction claim under section 1337 because section 1337 does not create an independent cause of action.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists when claims arise under federal law; an argument that the cited federal law does not apply contests the cause of action’s merits rather than subject-matter jurisdiction.

Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad v. Department of Taxation · filed 1984-06-14

“Defendant’s assertion that the sections of federal law cited by plaintiff are not applicable to the instant case does not defeat jurisdiction, but rather contests whether the plaintiff has stated a cause of action.” ... Since the claims arise under the laws of the United States, jurisdiction is attained by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits a court to determine the legal question whether a complaint states a federal claim, even when the complaint ultimately must be dismissed for failure to state one.

National Farmers Union Insurance Companies, a Utah Corporation, and Lodge Grass School District No. 27 v. Crow Tribe of · filed 1984-07-03

a court may take jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 if it must make a determination of law in order to determine whether plaintiff has stated a federal claim.

A federal court’s Section 1331 jurisdiction to decide a federal claim is not defeated merely because the claim fails to state a cause of action.

Wells v. Premier Industrial Corp. · filed 1984-11-15(a)

The fact that the court found no cause of action has no bearing on the issue of its jurisdiction to make that determination. Consequently, res judicata barred relitigation of Wells’ Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims.

A federal claim's failure to state a private cause of action calls for merits dismissal rather than dismissal for lack of Section 1331 jurisdiction unless the federal claim is insubstantial.

Spring Water Dairy, Inc. v. Federal Intermediate Credit Bank · filed 1986-01-03

Dismissal on this basis is more appropriate than dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate only if the federal claims are insubstantial.

A nonfrivolous claim of a federal statutory right invokes Section 1331 jurisdiction even if the complaint ultimately fails to state a federal cause of action.

Northwest South Dakota Production Credit Association v. Gilford L. Smith · filed 1986-02-19

A non-frivolous claim of a right or remedy under a federal statute is sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction. ... Because PCA's complaint alleged the right to foreclose a mortgage on trust land pursuant to 25 U.S.C. Sec. 483a, and because that asserted federal claim is not wholly insubstantial and frivolous, the district court had jurisdiction to determine whether PCA stated a cause of action upon which relief could be granted.

A federal statutory or constitutional claim supports Section 1331 jurisdiction unless it is wholly insubstantial, frivolous, immaterial, or asserted solely to create jurisdiction.

Paisey v. VITALE, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLA. · filed 1986-04-22

... a cause of action premised upon a federal statute or the Constitution is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction only if it is “wholly insubstantial,” “frivolous” or immaterial and “made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction to determine whether ERISA implies an employer's right of action or permits restitution of mistaken pension-fund contributions.

Dumac Forestry Services, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · filed 1986-05-19

Clearly, the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for the purpose of determining whether an employer has an implied right of action under section 403(c)(2)(A) or whether an employer may sue for restitution of mistaken payments made to a pension fund. This court agrees with that line of cases which allows employers to seek recovery of overpayments.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a claim against the United States that arises under the Fifth Amendment even when the constitutional claim ultimately fails on the merits.

Harper v. City of Birmingham · filed 1986-07-29

However, Plaintiff has also invoked the jurisdiction of this Court over said Defendant United States pursuant to the general federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Though this Court is of the opinion that it has jurisdiction over the United States pursuant to said statute, by virtue of the fact that Plaintiff has alleged against said Defendant a claim which “arises under” the Constitution of the United States, to-wit, the due process and just compensation guarantees of the Fifth Amendment, it is the opinion of this Court that, nevertheless, said claims must fail as a matter of law in light of this Court’s finding infra that the actions of the Defendants did not deprive Plaintiff of due process of law or the right to vote on said conveyance of property.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists over a pleaded federal claim unless the claim is patently meritless; failure to establish a federal cause of action is ordinarily a merits issue rather than a jurisdictional defect.

Dime Coal Company, Inc. v. Combs · filed 1986-08-11

Just as clearly, however, this case fell within the federal question jurisdiction of the district court. Dime Coal alleged in its complaint that it was entitled to a refund of the mistaken overpayments under a provision of federal law. The test of federal jurisdiction, where such a claim is raised, is not whether the cause of action alleged was one "on which [the complainant] could actually recover." ... Rather the test is whether "the cause of action alleged is so patently without merit as to justify ... the court's dismissal for want of jurisdiction."

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over an asserted Section 1983 claim even when the complaint may separately fail to state a claim for relief.

Toombs v. Dr. Carl Bell Norvell Dixon, Nurse, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of Corrections · filed 1986-08-11

Toombs, however, sought to assert a complaint under section 1983, and thus the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The district court’s ruling was, in effect, an order of dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

A Section 1331 claim should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction only when the asserted federal claim is clearly immaterial and brought solely to obtain jurisdiction; failure to state a viable federal claim is ordinarily a merits issue.

Doe v. Keane · filed 1987-04-15

Suits alleging jurisdiction on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 will rarely be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1). A federal claim should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction only when it is clearly immaterial and brought only for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction but creates no cause of action; when Section 1983 is available against a local official, it is the exclusive remedy for the same constitutional violation.

Thomas v. Walter Shipka, in His Capacity as Clerk of the Parma Municipal Court · filed 1987-05-01

We conclude that the precedents cited above do not preclude us from holding that § 1983 provides the exclusive remedy for the constitutional claims brought by the plaintiff in this case against the city official. Plaintiff seeks to establish a separate independent constitutional claim under § 1331 based on the same facts and the same substantive constitutional provisions which gave rise to her claim under § 1983. … merely provides the basis for jurisdiction, it does not create a cause of action in and of itself.

A state-law claim containing a federal issue does not arise under Section 1331 when the federal statute supplies no private right of action.

Millers National Insurance v. Axel's Express, Inc. · filed 1988-07-01

We are convinced that Congress, in enacting the statute, did not intend to provide a federal private right of action to insurers of carriers for indemnification against insurers of equipment owners. ... State law claim is not sufficient to present a federal question supporting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a Federal Credit Union Act claim when the Act creates no express or implied private action and no suitable federal common-law remedy exists.

Montford v. Robins Federal Credit Union · filed 1988-07-06

After a thorough consideration of the arguments of counsel and the relevant case law in this area, the court finds that the FCUA offers no express or implied right of action to Montford, nor is there an appropriate federal common-law remedy available to Mont-ford in this case. Consequently, this court has no jurisdiction to hear this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the court, in its discretion, dismisses any pendent state law causes of action that have been raised in Montford’s Complaint.