28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not create a cause of action, so a plaintiff must identify an independent substantive basis for federal jurisdiction.

Westwood Promotions, Inc. v. United States Postal Service · filed 1989-05-19

Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not create a cause of action upon which to base jurisdiction. ... Consequently, we agree with defendant that there must be an independent basis for jurisdiction other than the statutes relied on by plaintiff.

Section 1331 cannot supply jurisdiction over a claim under a federal statute that provides no private cause of action.

George Kraus and Antonio Aleman v. Santa Fe Southern Pacific Corporation, and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway · filed 1989-07-03

Because the Supreme Court now treats the existence of a private cause of action as a jurisdictional requirement, ... our holding that no private cause of action exists under section 11705 is dispositive of plaintiffs claims that jurisdiction could also be asserted under the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the regulation of commerce statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1337.

Sections 1331 and 1343 give district courts jurisdiction to decide the scope of Section 1981; an argument that particular conduct is not actionable under Section 1981 concerns failure to state a claim, not subject-matter jurisdiction.

James KIMBROUGH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant-Appellant · filed 1991-01-15

Section 1981 is not a jurisdictional statute; it makes certain conduct actionable. It is 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 which give the district courts jurisdiction to' entertain such actions. ... Federal courts have jurisdiction to decide what conduct is proscribed by section 1981.

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

Christenson v. St. Mary's Hosp. · filed 1993-10-29

Furthermore, because the statutes relied upon by plaintiffs do not create a cause of action, there is no federal question conferring jurisdiction on the court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a pleaded federal claim even if the allegations may fail to state a claim for relief.

Collins v. McClain · filed 2002-06-10

In his compliant, plaintiff alleges jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and alleges that “defendant(s) herein violated his rights under 42 U.S.C.1983.” ... While many of the allegations in the complaint plainly do not state a claim under section ... 1983 claim in order to hold that the court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim even when lack of state action means the claim fails on the merits.

Miles v. Mirrorball, Inc. · filed 2003-05-22

But we and several other courts have held that under the approach established in Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 681-83, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946), lack of state action does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim; it simply means that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. ... So the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over substantial constitutional claims even when the complaint fails to state an available cause of action for damages.

Peoples v. CCA Detention Centers · filed 2005-09-07

As such, we hold that both district courts had jurisdiction to hear all of Mr. Peoples’s constitutional claims. We need not remand in either case, however, because we also hold that Mr. Peoples fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

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

United States v. McInteer · filed 2006-12-01

The notion that Totten bars subject matter jurisdiction conflates the “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” under Rule 12(b)(6) with federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is not defeated by the possibility that a pleaded federal claim ultimately fails to state a claim.

Energytec, Inc. v. Proctor · filed 2007-04-30

The court determines that this in an improper Rule 12(b)(1) challenge: “Subject matter jurisdiction is not defeated by the possibility that the complaint ultimately fails to state a claim.” ... Plaintiff has adequately pleaded federal causes of action to confer subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a substantial federal claim even if the claim is later dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Walter v. Drayson · filed 2007-07-06

But deficient as Walter’s federal RICO claims were, they clearly conferred federal question jurisdiction on this court when this lawsuit commenced. Although the court dismisses the federal claims in this order, that dismissal is based on Walter’s failure to state a claim, not for lack of jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over an arguable federal claim even when the plaintiff ultimately fails to state a valid cause of action.

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

It is “firmly established . . . that the absence of a valid (as opposed to argu- able) cause of action does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction” under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998). Therefore, although we agree with the district court that USERRA does not create a cause of action against individual state supervisors, we do not view Townsend’s proposed claim against them as so “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” or “foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court,” see id., that federal question jurisdiction would not lie.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is invoked by pleaded constitutional claims and is not defeated merely by a determination that those claims fail to state a cognizable federal claim.

Woodend v. Lenape Regional High School District · filed 2013-08-14

According to Woodend, remand was required because the District Court found that he had not stated a cognizable federal claim, depriving the District Court of federal question jurisdiction. He is incorrect. Woodend clearly alleged constitutional claims invoking federal question jurisdiction, and supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims was proper because those claims are not “separate and independent” from the federal claims.

A federal claim that fails to state a claim can still support jurisdiction under § 1331.

Tapia v. Muhamed · filed 2023-01-17

Generally, a plaintiff establishes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 by asserting claims under provisions of the United States Constitution and federal statutes. ... Transferring this analysis to the context of a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) review of pro se pleadings, the Court finds that it may exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter of Ms. Tapia’s federal law claims, and the Court dismisses those federal law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim even when the plaintiff fails to allege state action; that failure is addressed under Rule 12(b)(6).

Bosan v. University Place Senior Living SE LP · filed 2025-09-08

Although some courts consider the failure to allege a state actor as showing lack of jurisdiction, ... the better approach is to analyze the claim under Rule 12(b)(6) because § 1983 is a federal statute that would confer jurisdiction on this Court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”).

Federal copyright claims invoke § 1331 jurisdiction, and an alleged failure to state a claim does not itself defeat that jurisdiction.

Carter v. Pallante · filed 2017-06-09

First, with respect to subject matter jurisdiction, Carter’s claims arise in large part under federal copyright law, and therefore invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... This argument, however, conflates the bases of Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motions. ... The Publisher Defendants’ motion under Rule 12(b)(1) is therefore denied.

Section 1331(a) grants subject-matter jurisdiction over actions arising under federal common law.

City Federal Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Crowley · filed 1975-04-24(a)

Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) is a grant of subject matter jurisdiction to actions arising under federal common law.

Section 1331 supports claims founded on federal common law as well as federal statutes, and jurisdiction exists when the pleaded federal common-law claim is not merely colorable or wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Stream Pollution Control Board of the State of Indiana, and Zarko Sekerez, Proposed Intervenor v. United States Steel Co · filed 1975-11-20(a)

That case does, however, unequivocally confirm “ that § 1331 jurisdiction will support claims founded upon federal common law as well as those of a statutory origin.” ... Nevertheless, we cannot fairly conclude from the pleading itself that the federal claim is merely colorable and asserted solely for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the district court to decide the state law issues. ... Surely enough has been alleged to give the district court jurisdiction to decide whether the Board is entitled to some relief as a matter of federal common law.

Section 1331(a) requires a suit to really and substantially dispute the validity, construction, or effect of federal law; a merely tangential federal connection is insufficient.

Smith v. Arthur R. Grimm and Jeannine Grimm · filed 1976-05-19(a)

However, such a relation to a federal law is not sufficient for section 1331(a) jurisdiction unless the lawsuit “really and substantially involves a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction, or effect . . . ” of the federal law.

The laws supporting Section 1331 jurisdiction include federal common law as well as federal statutes.

White v. Matthews · filed 1976-10-05

Moreover, the “laws” referred to in § 1331 include federal common law as well as statutory law.

Section 1331(a) does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim arising solely under state statutory law.

Van Horn v. Western Electric Co. · filed 1977-01-05(a)

The cause of action plead in the complaint does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, but, rather, is an action arising under Michigan statutory law.

A claim dependent on federal common law may support Section 1331(a) jurisdiction.

Trans-Bay Engineers and Builders, Inc. v. Carla A. Hills, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development · filed 1976-12-30(a)

The claim of right is dependent on federal common law. ... There is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a federal-common-law claim requires an issue needing construction of an Act of Congress or a distinctive congressional policy requiring federal principles; a mere reference to federal law is insufficient.

Prescription Plan Service Corp. v. Albert Franco, Individually and as Administrator · filed 1977-04-04

[T]hat federal law furnishes a necessary ingredient of a claim is insufficient as a basis for federal jurisdiction, unless the claim presents an issue requiring construction of an Act of Congress or unless a distinctive policy of an Act of Congress requires that federal principles control the disposition of the claim. ... Appellant has failed to meet this standard and has thus failed to show that its claim is one of those “few and restricted” instances in which federal common law should be developed, ... It follows a fortiori that there is no federal question-jurisdiction over appellant’s suit.

Section 1331 covers federal common-law claims based on equitable rights and duties generated by HUD’s activities under federal housing statutes.

United States v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago · filed 1977-11-17

Even assuming that § 1702 is not a specific statutory grant of federal jurisdiction, however, we find that the counterclaim falls within the scope of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The responsibilities and duties generated by HUD’s activities in furtherance of the Housing Act created a claim arising under federal law which falls within the federal question jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 does not provide subject-matter jurisdiction over claims that do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Marine Vessel Leasing Corp. · filed 1978-09-08

Subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is lacking because the claims alleged in these counts do not arise under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a claim whose primary sources are the Fifth Amendment and other federal law.

Wearly v. Federal Trade Commission · filed 1978-10-18

In view of the analysis of the controversy, it is clear that the claim arises under federal law, the primary sources being Amendment 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the FTCA, and the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Section 1331(a) is a general jurisdictional grant and requires the claim to arise under an applicable source of federal substantive law.

Blazquez v. New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund · filed 1979-01-12(a)

Therefore, the claim at bar must implicate at least one of the two other bases.

Section 1331(a) treats federal common law, when it exists, as a law of the United States and therefore supplies federal-question jurisdiction over federal common-law claims.

New England Legal Foundation v. Costle · filed 1979-07-30(a)

It is well established that federal common law, when it exists, is among the “laws of the United States” within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), and thus there is federal question jurisdiction for claims based on federal common law.

Federal common-law claims involving substantial federal interests can state a claim and provide federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331 even when no private right of action can be implied from the cited federal statutes.

In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation · filed 1979-11-20

The claims in the TAVC alleged to arise, by implication, under FI-FRA, FEPCA, TOSCA, and CPSA are dismissed ... The claims in the TAVC alleged under federal common law are held to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and to provide a basis for ... federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Federal courts have Section 1331 jurisdiction over claims governed by federal common law because those claims present federal questions.

DeSimone v. Warwick Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 1980-01-22

Federal courts have jurisdiction over such claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, since they are widely considered federal question cases.

Section 1331's arising-under requirement may be met by claims founded on federal common law as well as claims of statutory origin.

Gila River Indian Community v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, a Nebraska Corporation, and Ranier Construction Company, · filed 1980-08-29

It is true that the “arising under” requirement of section 1331 may be met by “claims founded upon federal common law as well as those of a statutory origin.”

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a private export-credit insurance dispute when federal interests are only tangential and state rather than federal common law governs the policy.

Lovell Manufacturing v. Export-Import Bank Of The United States · filed 1988-03-31

In this case, however, federal interests and obligations are implicated only tangentially. The insurance policy makes FCIA, a private association, fully liable for any commercial risk claims. ... Therefore, we hold that jurisdiction does not lie under section 1331.

Section 1331 supports claims founded on federal common law as well as claims created directly by federal statutes.

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

§ 1331 jurisdiction will support claims founded upon federal common law as well as those of a statutory origin.”

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims governed by federal common law, including claims arising from federally preempted duties and liabilities in interstate telecommunications.

Harrison Higgins, Inc. v. AT & T Communications, Inc. · filed 1988-10-21

Higgins responded to AT & T’s removal by filing two amended complaints, both of which allege causes of action under the Communications Act. As will be further discussed below, the plaintiff in fact has a cause of action under federal common law, and the case is therefore properly removed. ... federal question jurisdiction under ... U.S.C. § 1331(a) for questions of federal common law)

Section 1331(a) covers equitable rights arising under federal common law from HUD's administration of the National Housing Act mortgage-assignment program.

Epps v. Lomas Mortgage USA, Inc. (In Re Epps) · filed 1990-02-13(a)

Finally, the court finds that plaintiffs averments invoke equitable rights that flow from HUD’s course of activities pursuant to the NHA’s Mortgage Assignment Program. Those rights arise under federal common law and fall within the federal question jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 does not authorize a court to create a federal-common-law remedy for ERISA fiduciaries when Congress carefully limited the remedies available under ERISA.

Winstead v. J.C. Penney Co. · filed 1990-06-28

In the alternative, the Trustees argue that this suit arises under federal common law and that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides them the remedy they seek. ... The court disagrees. ... This court has concluded that Congress’ careful delineation of the types of statutory remedies available to fiduciaries of ERISA funds precludes this court from creating a cause of action out of the “notoriously indistinct” boundaries of “arising under” jurisdiction.

An ERISA federal-common-law claim arises under federal law for Section 1331 purposes only when the disputed issue is of central concern to ERISA; merely invoking Section 1331 and federal common law is insufficient.

Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company v. Mary J. Waller, Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company v. Mary J. Wa · filed 1990-07-10

Our holding today that the creation of ERISA federal common law establishes “arising under” jurisdiction is not without boundaries, however. The mere invocation by a plaintiff of § 1331 and federal common law is not enough, by itself, to confer federal question jurisdiction. ... that federal question jurisdiction exists pursuant to ERISA only where the issue in dispute is of “central concern” to the federal statute.

Section 1331 does not itself provide jurisdiction over a customary-international-law claim; international law must itself supply a cause of action cognizable in an American court.

Linder v. Portocarrero · filed 1990-09-17

Because § 1331 does not provide subject matter jurisdiction for claims which violate international law, it must be determined whether international law itself provides a cause of action in an American court for private claims of torture arising during the course of a civil war on foreign soil.

Section 1331 does not authorize a federal court to imply an ERISA cause of action or create federal common law when the claim falls outside ERISA’s express jurisdictional provisions.

Capital Mercury Shirt Corp. v. Employers Reinsurance Corp. · filed 1990-10-01

In this case, Capital’s claims do not fall within the express jurisdictional provisions, § 1132, of ERISA. Thus, ERISA by its terms does not authorize federal jurisdiction over this suit. We decline to imply such a cause of action or to create a body of federal common law under § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies original district-court jurisdiction over a suit against a federal agency to enforce a loan guaranty when federal law governs the claim.

Western Securities Company, a Subsidiary of Universal Mortgage Corporation v. Edward J. Derwinski, Secretary of Veterans · filed 1991-07-25

Jurisdiction is saved by the fact that Western’s suit, being a suit against the Veterans’ Administration to enforce the loan guaranty, arises under federal law and is therefore within the original jurisdiction of the federal district court by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (the general federal-question jurisdictional statute), making objection to removal waivable.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over disputes governed by federal common law, including suits over leases with the Postal Service.

Continental Cablevision of St. Paul, Inc. v. United States Postal Service · filed 1991-10-07

The same result, we believe, follows also under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For, even (or especially) under the government’s theory (which is that federal law governs the question of lease renewal), this is an action arising under federal law within the meaning of that jurisdictional grant.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims based on federal common law, even when the claim does not rely on a federal statute or constitutional provision.

Smith v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois · filed 1992-02-07

District courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over claims based on federal common law; it is not necessary to base a claim on a federal statute or provision of the Constitution.

Section 1331 supports federal common law jurisdiction only when a dispute implicates a uniquely federal interest and state law significantly conflicts with federal policy or would frustrate a specific objective of federal legislation.

Northrop Corporation v. Ail Systems, Inc., and Eaton Corporation · filed 1992-04-10

Thus, we assert federal common law jurisdiction over Northrop’s lawsuit against AIL only if (1) the dispute implicates a uniquely federal interest and (2) a significant conflict exists between an identifiable federal policy or interest and the application of state law to the dispute or the application of state law would frustrate specific objectives of federal legislation. ... Northrop’s suit against AIL meets neither requirement, and therefore federal common law jurisdiction does not lie.

Section 1331 requires a federal statute to create the claim or a substantial federal question to be a necessary element of the claim, apparent on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.

Andrisani v. Mojave Pipeline Co. · filed 1993-03-01

Finally, Andrisani contends the district court had general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this case arises under federal law. ... Generally, an action arises under federal law if either: (1) a federal statute creates the claim; or (2) a substantial question of federal law is a necessary element of the claim. ... Because a federal-law element does not appear on the face of Andrisani's complaint, the district court did not err by finding it lacked federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over an ERISA plan’s unjust enrichment counterclaim arising under federal common law.

Travitz v. Northeast Department ILGWU Health & Welfare Fund · filed 1993-04-09

4. Defendants’ counterclaim for reimbursement of advanced funds is deemed one under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a federal common law claim only when the claim requires construction of an Act of Congress or a distinctive congressional policy requires federal principles to govern it.

United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 33 v. R.E. Dietz Co. · filed 1993-06-17

The circumstances in which courts have resorted to federal common law as an independent jurisdictional basis under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 are limited. Unless a claim presents an issue requiring construction of an Act of Congress or unless a distinctive policy of an Act of Congress requires that federal principles control the disposition of the claim, there is no independent claim for jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim based on independent federal law; the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act supplies that basis for a claim to collect a debt owed to the United States.

United States v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. · filed 1993-07-19

In order to invoke federal jurisdiction under Section 1331, a plaintiff’s claim must be based on some federal law independent of that statute. ... In the present ease, the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3308, provides the requisite statutory basis for federal jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an employer’s restitution and rescission claim arising under the federal common law of ERISA.

Fasco Industries, Inc. v. MacK · filed 1994-01-28

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Fasco is entitled to assert its Count II claim for restitution and rescission under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the claim arises under the federal common law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction only when the complaint arises under the Federal Constitution, laws, or treaties; allegations about foreclosure of estate property do not suffice.

Herron-Cole v. Kay Jeter Richard Manson · filed 1994-04-28

Construing the complaint in the light most favorable to Herron-Cole, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 235-37 (1974); United States v. Ritchie, No. 92-6393, 1994 WL 27025, at * 4 (6th Cir. Feb. 3, 1994), we conclude that the complaint as submitted did not vest the district court with jurisdiction, as it did not arise under the Federal Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States as required by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, nor is there diversity of citizenship among the parties; and Herron-Cole's claim did not meet the prerequisite jurisdictional amount as required by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a suit to enjoin a local agency’s investigation when the suit challenges the agency’s authority under federal law, even if it also challenges authority under local law; later withdrawal of the federal complaint does not defeat jurisdiction that existed when the suit was filed.

United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Inc. v. Metropolitan Human Relations Commission · filed 1994-05-23

The district court properly exercised federal question jurisdiction over Farm Bureau’s attempt to enjoin Metro’s investigation of complaints of insurance redlining that were dual filed pursuant to the federal Fair Housing Act and Fort Wayne General Ordinance G21-78. The district court had jurisdiction at the time the complaint was filed, and subsequent actions by HUD do not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over an ERISA claim based on federal common law when that theory conflicts with ERISA’s express limits on who may seek the requested remedy.

Ocean Breeze Festival Park, Inc. v. Reich · filed 1994-05-27

To invoke federal common law in order to support jurisdiction in this case would conflict with ERISA’s specific statutory provisions. Therefore, the court rejects plaintiffs’ attempt to premise subject matter jurisdiction on section 1331 and federal common law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the outcome of an insurance dispute involving an ERISA plan depends on federal common law.

Auto Owners Insurance Company, a Michigan Insurance Corporation v. Thorn Apple Valley, Inc. · filed 1994-09-26

Accordingly, in this circuit, in cases such as this one, where the outcome rests upon the district court’s construction of federal common law, jurisdiction is grounded upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a claim neither alleges a violation of federal law nor turns on a federal statutory or constitutional provision.

Alfab, Inc. v. CNA Financial Corp. · filed 1995-01-26

First, Plaintiffs neither allege a violation of nor does the disposition of this action pivot on a federal statutory or constitutional provision. Therefore, subject matter jurisdiction may not be asserted on the basis of federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because federal law requires the insurance coverage underlying the claim.

Carway v. Progressive County Mutual Insurance · filed 1995-05-10

When a plaintiff relies exclusively on a state law theory of recovery, the fact that the Interstate Commerce Act and the Commission’s regulations mandate that carriers obtain security and make certain filings to assure financial responsibility towards the public does not make the state law claim a federal question “arising under” the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, so the complaint must sufficiently allege a federal basis for the claim.

Lawrence Aug Pulchin and Christina F. Pulchin v. Kenneth Kubsch, M.D. And John Blackburn · filed 1995-11-03

Congress provided for federal jurisdiction in diversity of citizenship cases (not applicable here) 2 under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332 and in civil actions "arising under" federal law, see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. Thus, in order to bring a claim in federal court, plaintiffs' complaint must sufficiently allege that it "arises under" or is based on federal law.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint raises international-relations issues governed by federal common law, even if it asserts state-law claims.

Torres v. Southern Peru Copper Corp. · filed 1995-12-04

In this case the Court finds federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded complaint raises issues of international relations which arise under federal common law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims concerning interstate telephone companies when federal common law governs their duties and liabilities.

State v. Oncor Communications, Inc. · filed 1996-02-08

Because, under Nordlicht, federal law preempts state law in the area of interstate telecommunications, the case is one which arises under the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s action arises under state rather than federal law.

In re of 17,325 Liters of Liquor · filed 1996-02-28

Nor is there a basis for exercising federal question jurisdiction, as the Department’s action arises out of state, rather than federal, law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law petition whose resolution turns on a substantial question governed exclusively by federal law.

Still v. DeBuono · filed 1996-05-30

The petition refers to IDEA and is in fact predicated on rights and duties governed exclusively by IDEA and federal case law. Since petitioners seek annulment of ALJ Zylberberg’s decision to award respondent Mr. “_” reimbursement for his costs expended in providing his son E.M. with an appropriate education under IDEA, the controversy “arises under” federal law within the intendment of 28 U.S.C. see. 1331 and 1441.

Section 1331 gives federal question jurisdiction over a claim founded on federal common law.

McIntosh v. Pacific Holding Co. · filed 1996-06-18

Therefore, a claim founded upon federal common law “arises under” federal law within the meaning of section 1331.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction when the face of the complaint presents a substantial, disputed question of federal law, including claims expressly invoking federal statutory or constitutional rights.

Quarles v. Jackson · filed 1996-08-15

Generally, for purposes of § 1331, a suit arises under federal law if there appears on the face of the complaint some substantial, disputed question of federal law. ... Accordingly, we hold that the district court had federal question jurisdiction under section 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over state-pleaded damages claims that actually arise under federal common law governing interstate telephone carriers.

Marcus v. AT & T CORP. · filed 1996-08-21

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ common-law claims arise under federal law, there is subject matter jurisdiction, and the Marcus complaint properly was removed.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state law claim when vindicating the right necessarily requires construing federal law and the federal statute suggests Congress intended a private federal right of action.

Floyd v. District of Columbia · filed 1996-09-09

An action “arises under” federal law within the meaning of section 1331 when it is apparent from the face of a well-plead complaint that (1) the plaintiffs cause of action is created by federal law; or (2) the vindication of a state law right necessarily depends on construction of the federal law, and the federal statute as a whole suggests a congressional intent to créate a private federal right of action.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction when a federal issue is an essential component of a claim, even if the plaintiff presents it within a state-law claim.

Jackson v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance · filed 1996-09-27

For jurisdictional purposes, it matters not that plaintiffs’ allegation of race discrimination is not presented as a “separate” cause of action but rather as part of their larger claim of bad faith claims denial. What is determinative is whether the allegation of race discrimination is a necessary or essential component of their bad faith claim. And it is.

Section 1331 covers claims founded on federal common law as well as claims arising under federal statutes.

KLLM, Inc. Employee Health Protection Plan v. Ontario Community Hospital · filed 1996-10-28

Federal question jurisdiction supports not only those claims of a statutory origin but also those “founded upon federal common law.”

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal common law.

Group Hospitalization & Medical Services, Inc. v. Richardson · filed 1996-11-15

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal courts have federal question jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal common law.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under federal common law, including claims preempted by ERISA.

Busacca v. Excavating, Building Material & Construction Drivers Union Local 436 Welfare Fund Board of Trustees · filed 1996-12-13

Thus, Plaintiffs claim is preempted by ERISA. As in Whitworth Brothers, Plaintiffs claim arises under federal common law and falls within this Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff’s claim to arise under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

North Central F.S., Inc. v. Brown · filed 1996-12-23

Thus, in order to assert federal question jurisdiction, the court must be satisfied that the plaintiffs claim is one “‘arising under’ federal law.”

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

Ren-Dan Farms, Inc. v. Monsanto Co. · filed 1997-01-23

An action “arises under” federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 if either a federal law “creates the cause of action” or the plaintiffs’ right to relief “necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 permits federal question jurisdiction when a complaint states a federally created cause of action or a state-law claim turns on a substantial question of federal law.

Whayne v. City of Topeka · filed 1997-03-10

Even with some measure of charitable interpretation, the court finds that Mr. Whayne’s allegations do not state a federally-created cause of action. Nor can the court imagine any potential state-law cause of action which would turn on the construction of a federal law. Accordingly, the court may not exercise “federal question” jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to identify the federal provision underlying the claim and allege facts showing that the claim arises under federal law.

Gary G. Lohse and Carolyn A. Lohse v. Jeffrey A. Felker and Catherine Battock · filed 1997-08-01

In claiming federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the plaintiff "must identify the statutory or constitutional provision under which the claim arises, and allege sufficient facts to show that the case is one arising under federal law." Martinez v. United States Olympic Comm., 802 F.2d 1275, 1280 (10th Cir.1986). ... Thus, we agree with the district court that the Lohses failed to raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a private dispute merely because it involves federally chartered, regulated entities and a federal interest in their market.

Frank v. Bear Stearns & Co · filed 1997-12-09

Although Congress chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to establish secondary mortgage markets subject to federal regulation, the mere fact that the United States has an interest in regulating the secondary mortgage market does not in itself justify federal question jurisdiction in every case involving these federally regulated entities.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a private dispute involving federally chartered and regulated entities when no uniquely federal interest requires federal common law.

Frank v. Bear Stearns & Co. · filed 1997-12-19

This case is not one of the “few and restricted” cases involving a genuine federal question because it does not involve the rights and obligations of the United States, interstate or international issues implicating the conflicting rights of states, or foreign relations.

Section 1331 confers federal question jurisdiction over actions arising under federal common law.

Cobell v. Babbitt · filed 1998-11-05

Actions arising under federal common law fall within the general federal question jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a case governed by federal common law.

Woodward Governor Co. v. Curtiss-Wright Flight Systems, Inc. · filed 1999-01-08

It is beyond dispute that if federal common law governs a case, that case presents a federal question within the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts, just as if the case were governed by a federal statute.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim that, on the face of the complaint, seeks relief for violation of a federal statute such as the WARN Act.

Velazquez v. Four Star Industries, Inc. · filed 1999-05-05

In view of the above discussion, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have brought claims which arise under the laws of the United States and therefore subject the instant claim under the WARN Act to the jurisdiction of this Court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts no federal claim and its state-law claim does not depend on interpreting federal law.

Rodriguez v. P.L. Industries, Inc. · filed 1999-05-25

Moreover, Plaintiffs fail to provide the Court with any reason why their cause of action under Law 80 hinges on any interpretation of the WARN Act, or any other federal statute. Thus, because Plaintiffs have not brought forth a claim under the WARN Act or any other federal claim, the Court hereby GRANTS P.L.’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as it relates to the issue of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the parties agree on federal law and dispute only the meaning of state law.

Shegog v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago · filed 1999-10-18

When the parties agree about the meaning and application of federal law and disagree only about the meaning of state law, then the complaint does not “arise under” federal law; any other approach would open the door to collusive allegations of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits an ordinary suit to enforce the federal common law right of access to federal judicial records.

Smith v. United States District Court Officers · filed 2000-02-07

... there is a federal common law right to access to federal judicial records which can be enforced by means of an ordinary suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (the federal-question jurisdiction).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law boat insurance claims that raise no federal statute or maritime-law question.

Gucciardo v. Reliance Insurance · filed 2000-02-23

It is clear from reviewing the Plaintiffs amended complaint that no federal statute is implicated in any of the causes of action. While Reliance is correct that the claim involves damage to a boat, nothing in the amended complaint raises a question of admiralty or maritime law. Rather, the amended complaint alleges a straightforward breach of contract claim arising from an insurance policy under New York state common law, and two claims for alleged violations of New York State’s Insurance law.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint on its face implicates the federal common law of foreign relations.

In Re World War II Era Japanese Forced Labor Litigation · filed 2000-09-21

The court concludes that the complaints in the instant cases, on their face, implicate the federal common law of foreign relations and, as such, give rise to federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires an asserted federal right to be a substantial and essential element of the claim for federal-question jurisdiction.

United States v. Nevada · filed 2000-09-21

To invoke the “arising under” phrase, the assertion of a federal right must be a substantial part and essential element of the claim.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under federal common law as well as federal statutes.

Nippon Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Skyway Freight Systems, Inc. · filed 2000-12-06

Since we conclude that this case arises under federal common law, federal jurisdiction over this case is properly based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which "support[s] claims founded upon federal common law as well as those of a statutory origin." Sam L. Majors Jewelers v. ABX, Inc., 117 F.3d 922, 926 (5th Cir. 1997) (quoting Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 100 (1972)).

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law even when those claims may fail on the merits.

Borg-Warner Protective Services Corp. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · filed 2001-04-17

Both the APA and Title VII are federal laws, and so the claims satisfy the "arising under" requirement. It is of no moment whether Borg-Warner's claims are meritless or would eventually fail. A claim does not have to be a good one for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction over it.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint merely refers to federal laws without alleging facts supporting a federal claim.

Matthews v. Stewart · filed 2001-07-06

In this court of limited jurisdiction, a passing reference to federal laws is insufficient to confer jurisdiction, and this court declines to exercise jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a dispute between private parties is governed by federal law because the federal government bears the financial risk under a federal program.

Downey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 2001-09-17

That is enough to justify the application of federal law to the dispute, which means that subject-matter jurisdiction arises under § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court original jurisdiction over state-law claims that actually arise under federal common law or are completely preempted by federal law.

Strategic Assets, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp. · filed 2001-10-02

Because Plaintiff has pled only state common law claims, the Court has original jurisdiction if the claims in fact arise under federal common law, or if the claims arise under state common law but are so completely preempted that even the preemption question itself must be removed to the federal system.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint asserts a nonfrivolous cause of action under federal law.

Sallen v. LTDA · filed 2001-12-05

Sallen's complaint alleges a cause of action under federal law, namely 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v), and so his cause of action arises under federal law for purposes of § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a challenge to a state public service commission order when the complaint raises an arguable claim under federal law; every issue need not depend entirely on federal law.

BellSouth Telecommunications v. MCImetro Access · filed 2002-01-10

The resolution of each issue need not depend completely upon an interpretation of federal law. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 jurisdiction, all that is required is that there be an arguable claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a local-law claim whose success does not depend on proving a violation of federal law.

Republican Party of Guam I Mina' Bente Singko Na Liheslaturan Guahan v. Carl T.C. Gutierrez, as Governor of Guam, and th · filed 2002-01-15

In contrast, the success of the plaintiffs’ claim in this case does not depend upon a violation of federal law. The plaintiffs’ claim relies upon the Governor’s alleged violation of the appointment procedures under Guam law, specifically P.L. No. 25-146. The plaintiffs have failed to state a claim arising under federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supports federal jurisdiction over state-law claims for flood-insurance premium refunds when interpreting federal policy puts federal funds at risk and calls for federal common law to displace state law.

Southpointe Villas Homeowners Ass'n v. Scottish Insurance Agency, Inc. · filed 2002-04-11

Consequently, Plaintiffs claims involve a federal question such that the Court has proper jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1331, because the interpretation of a federal policy potentially places federal funds at risk, giving rise to a uniquely federal interest so important that the “federal common law” should supplant state law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that can be resolved without reference to federal law.

Bouie v. American General Life & Accident Insurance · filed 2002-04-19

This doctrine does not help defendants here, because in order to resolve plaintiffs claims, a court will need to refer to federal law not at all. Plaintiff has asserted state law claims plain and simple.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction merely because a plaintiff asserts a violation of another jurisdictional statute that creates no cause of action.

Lehman v. Discovery Communications, Inc. · filed 2002-08-22

As such, Lehman does not allege an action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 by asserting that the defendants violated 28 U.S.C. § 1337.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a tribe’s claim to enforce an exclusion ordinance when the tribe’s disputed power over nonmembers arises under federal law.

Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians v. Torres · filed 2002-08-29

The language “arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” is identical to that of section 1331. In this regard, in order to invoke federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff has to assert a federal question. ... Therefore, the Tribe’s claim arises under federal law, and this Court has proper jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over an unjust enrichment claim arising under federal common law.

Unum Life Insurance Co. of America v. Long · filed 2002-10-16

Because UNUM has alleged a claim for unjust enrichment under federal common law, jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over an ERISA federal common law claim when the disputed issue is of central concern to ERISA.

Cooperative Benefit Administrators, Inc. v. Ogden · filed 2003-04-28

However, the creation of ERISA federal common law establishes “arising under” jurisdiction only where the issue in dispute is of central concern to the federal statute. ... Thus, this Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to its federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a federal common law action to enforce a labor arbitration subpoena against a nonsignatory.

Teamsters National Automotive Transporters Industry Negotiating Committee v. Troha · filed 2003-04-29

In turn, because the cause of action arises under federal common law, the district court had jurisdiction over the action under 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a cause of action arising under federal common law.

Teamsters National Automotive Transporters Industry Negotiating Committee v. Troha · filed 2003-05-28

In turn, because the cause of action arises under federal common law, the district court had jurisdiction over the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a party cites federal law in a brief when the claims can be proved without relying on that law.

In Re Wal-Mart Employee Litigation · filed 2003-06-30

In view of the fact that plaintiffs allege only state law claims and argue that they can prove such claims without relying on the FLSA, plaintiffs’ references to the FLSA in their reply brief do not require a conclusion that it is necessary to interpret the FLSA in order to determine Wal-Mart’s liability. Without more, the references are insufficient to establish that plaintiffs’ claims arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a dispute about rights under a state mineral lease when the allegations present no controversy arising under federal law, the Constitution, or a treaty.

Nato Indian Nation v. State of Utah · filed 2003-08-08

Those allegations do not present a controversy arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, 7 and it readily appears that allowing an opportunity to amend would have been futile.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under federal common law even when the plaintiff has no statutory ERISA cause of action.

Cooperative Benefit Administrators, Inc. v. Ogden · filed 2004-04-29

As the district court correctly ruled, however, CBA’s failure to state a statutory cause of action under ERISA does not bar federal subject matter jurisdiction over its unjust enrichment claim under federal common law.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over an application based on state child-support law.

United States v. Hames · filed 2004-12-09

Third, there is no federal question jurisdiction here: the substantive basis of the appellees’ application is § 151.001(c) of the Texas Family Code. Federal courts are statutorily vested with jurisdiction over actions arising under and based upon the Constitution or laws of the United States, not the Texas Family Code.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under the Constitution or a specific federal law; it does not independently create subject matter jurisdiction.

Watson v. Chessman · filed 2005-02-02

Section 1331, like Section 1340 does not independently create subject matter jurisdiction; the suit must “arise under” the Constitution or some other specific section of the United States Code.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a discrimination claim arising under federal law whether the claim is construed under Title VI or Title VII.

Venkatraman v. REI Systems Inc · filed 2005-07-29

Jurisdiction exists over Venkatraman’s discrimination claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Whether construed under Title VI or Title VII, it arises under the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only common law causes of action.

Hunter v. District of Columbia · filed 2005-08-03

Because the complaint asserts only common law causes of action, however, and the United States is not a plaintiff, the only possible source of federal jurisdiction in this case is diversity.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because resolving it may require interpreting federal law.

Sullivan v. American Airlines, Inc. · filed 2005-09-13

As a general rule, a suit seeking recovery under state law is not transformed into a suit "arising under" federal law merely because, to resolve it, the court may need to interpret federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to show that its claims arise under federal law.

Hamilton v. Ranger Enterprises · filed 2005-10-04

The district court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction, concluding Hamilton had failed to demonstrate that the claims asserted against Defendant arose under federal law. ... Based on our review of the record, the pleadings, and the arguments asserted by Hamilton in his appellate brief, we conclude the district court did not err when it dismissed Hamilton’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that is not a civil action arising under federal law.

Schu v. Community for Creative Nonviolence · filed 2006-07-31

The district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is not a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or between citizens of different states, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; nor does the complaint allege any other basis for the district court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when a right or immunity created by federal law is an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action.

Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Tombs · filed 2006-12-18

A case arises under federal law for purposes of §1331 or §1338(a) if a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States is an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over FDCA claims lacking a private right of action when the claims do not necessarily depend on a federal-law question.

Gonzalez v. L'OREAL USA, INC. · filed 2007-05-24

Therefore, because Plaintiffs do not have a private right of action under the FDCA and their causes of action do not depend necessarily on a question of federal law, their claims under the FDCA do not “arise under” federal law for the purpose of finding subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires an action to arise under federal law; alleging constitutional violations by a pest control provider did not satisfy that requirement.

Willis v. Tingey · filed 2007-06-11

The district court properly found no federal question jurisdiction because Willis’ action, which alleged that defendant’s pest control services and related conduct violated his constitutional rights, does not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a civil action that does not arise under federal law.

Bell v. Kitchings · filed 2007-06-14

The district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is not a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; nor does the complaint allege any other basis for the district court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a civil action to arise under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Bell v. Nordstrom · filed 2007-06-14

The district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is not a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; nor does the complaint allege any other basis for the district court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising from an applicable federal statute or constitutional provision to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Farag v. US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES · filed 2008-01-22

To invoke jurisdiction under this statute, plaintiff must make a claim that arises from an applicable federal statute or constitutional provision. ... Therefore, it is clear that this Court does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a result of a constitutional violation.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because resolving it may adversely affect a federal consent decree.

Najiy v. City of Miami · filed 2008-04-09

We do not find that resolution of the Officers’ Florida Civil Rights Act allegations necessarily implicates federal law, as a state law claim does not arise under federal law simply because it adversely impacts the terms of a federal consent decree.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a civil action that does not arise under federal law.

Kirklewski v. Porchlight Inc. · filed 2008-06-26

The district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is not a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; nor does the complaint allege any other basis for the district court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides general federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging a Rehabilitation Act claim, to the extent the court has subject matter jurisdiction over that claim.

Douglass v. District of Columbia · filed 2009-03-31

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, and thus, to the extent this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over that claim, Plaintiff’s Complaint "aris[es] under the [] laws” of the United States and this Court has general federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when dismissal of the underlying habeas petition leaves no claim arising under federal law.

Mallouk v. Bush · filed 2009-08-04

Thus, even if habeas corpus is a “civil action” for purposes of § 1331 (a proposition for which petitioners cite no case support), the dismissal of the habeas petition here leaves nothing in the “Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States” for petitioners’ claim to “arise under.”

Section 1331 does not itself authorize a federal court to create a federal common law cause of action.

Mohamad v. Rajoub · filed 2009-09-30

Plaintiffs’ claim that the general federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, provides this Court with jurisdiction to fashion a cause of action for them out of federal common law is not supported by the Sosa decision.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a dispute arising under state common law rather than federal law.

McCoy v. McCoy · filed 2010-01-25

However, it appears that the dispute between the parties arises under state common law, not under federal law. Therefore, it does not appear that this court has federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to establish that the cause of action arises under the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty.

Patterson v. District of Columbia Housing Authority · filed 2010-03-08

The complaint does not establish that plaintiffs cause of action arises under the United States Constitution, federal law, or treaty.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a dispute to enforce an interconnection agreement merely because the agreement incorporates federal law.

Budget Prepay, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. · filed 2010-05-03

The invocation of federal law in an ICA does not turn a contract dispute into a federal question case; rather, it accepts the relevant statutory language or regulation as a binding contract provision in lieu of a privately negotiated provision.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when a well pleaded complaint shows that federal law creates the cause of action or that relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial federal question.

Christman v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc. · filed 2010-05-21

A claim arises under federal law for purposes of § 1331 when the plaintiff’s well pleaded complaint establishes that federal law either creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends upon the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; tort claims arising under common law or District of Columbia law do not qualify.

Walker v. Dickerson · filed 2010-05-27

A federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The allegations in the complaint, however, do not appear to arise under federal law. See generally Compl. (suggesting that the defendant improperly disposed of the plaintiff’s personal belongings). Rather, they appear to sound in tort, alluding to causes of action for conversion, negligence or theft. See id. As such, they appear to arise under the common law or the laws of the District of Columbia rather than under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that arises under tribal law rather than federal law.

Alexander v. Salazar · filed 2010-09-13

Consequently, because Alexander claim does not “arise under” federal law, the Court finds that section 1331 does not afford a basis for federal court jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over suits arising under federal common law.

Nahno-Lopez v. Houser · filed 2010-11-09

The district court also had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as a federal common-law suit provides federal question jurisdiction.

A complaint that relies only on state law and disclaims federal claims does not arise under federal law for purposes of § 1331.

State Ex Rel. Skaggs v. Brunner · filed 2010-12-16

A complaint that invokes state law alone, and that mentions federal law only to disclaim any reliance on it, does not provide a basis for arising-under federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law contract and fraud claims merely because a complaint mentions RICO without pleading a RICO claim.

Nansemond Wharf-Suffolk Properties, LLC v. Bank of Southside Virginia · filed 2011-04-21

As previously noted, federal courts are not bestowed with subject matter jurisdiction over ordinary breach of contract and common law fraud claims by the mere presence of the word “RICO” in a complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on federal common law when federal common law is not required to govern the dispute.

L'Garde, Inc. v. Raytheon Space & Airborne Systems · filed 2011-07-26

Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant has not met its burden of proving that the imposition of federal common law is required, and as such, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction and will apply California law to resolve the present dispute.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal question jurisdiction only when the complaint states a claim arising under federal law.

Madruga v. Farr · filed 2011-10-13

The Court lacks federal question jurisdiction in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because it does not state a claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when a federal statute merely explains a defense and no substantial federal question must be resolved.

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Ute Distribution Corp. · filed 2012-01-05

But a federal statute that provides an explanation for a defense is not part of a plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint, and we have not been asked to resolve a substantial question of federal law. We hold that the district court did not have federal question jurisdiction over the Tribe’s state law claims based on the Partition Act.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a common-law fraud claim that does not arise under federal law.

Mehio v. Sonntag · filed 2012-05-08

Such a claim does not establish federal question jurisdiction because it does not “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A citation to due process does not turn state-law tort claims into claims arising under federal law for purposes of § 1331.

Chadda v. Magady · filed 2012-06-04

Her citation to “due process” does not transform these state-law claims into causes of action “arising under” the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over an ERISA fiduciary’s affirmative claim for an injunction under ERISA § 502(a)(3) because federal law creates the remedy sought.

Trustees of the Carpenters' Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Darr · filed 2012-08-21

Darr misses the jurisdictional basis of the Trustees’ claim; it arises not as a defense to his state claim but under a federal law, § 502(a)(3), that created a federal remedy the Trustees seek to employ in a federal court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that can be resolved without establishing a violation of federal law.

North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Dentalcare Partners, Inc. · filed 2013-03-15

Such a legal assessment does not require does not require the intervention of federal law. Because the plaintiffs claims do not arise under federal law, this court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the instant action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only a common-law claim of fraud.

Johnson v. Howard University · filed 2013-07-26

The instant complaint alleging a common law claim of fraud does not come within this Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and the diversity statute “applies only to cases in which the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).

Section 1331 does not confer subject-matter jurisdiction over a civil action that does not arise under federal law.

Potter v. Special Funds Conservation Committee · filed 2013-08-01

The district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because it is not a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not confer subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint that does not arise under federal law.

Shipman v. Logistics Health, Inc. · filed 2014-07-29

The district court properly dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is not a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, or between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; nor does the complaint allege any other basis for the district court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction over claims asserting violations of federal law and state-law claims that incorporate federal law and necessarily turn on its construction.

Jones v. Home Mortgage Direct Lenders · filed 2015-03-26

The first cause of action in Appellants’ complaint asserted violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1641(f)(2), giving the district court original subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Appellants’ third and fourth causes of action, which asserted violations of a Nevada statute that incorporates the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq., necessarily turn on the construction of federal law and were thus also subject to the district court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Atesom v. Guam Memorial Hospital Authority · filed 2016-03-02

A case “arises under” federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or where plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises only state-law claims and merely alludes to federal law.

O'Connell v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority · filed 2016-05-23

Additionally, we conclude that the District Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because O’Connell’s initial and Amended Complaint do not raise a federal question. The references to federal law are limited to citations in support of O’Connell’s assertion that he was in the military and one stray reference to the United States Constitution.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a case relying primarily on federal common law when it raises a substantial question about the scope and meaning of a federal rule.

Carlson v. United States · filed 2016-09-15

The court had federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because- this is an action “arising under the Constitution, laws,'or treaties of the United States.” ... That Carlson is relying primarily on federal common law does not change this analysis. ... Because the case raises a substantial question relating to the scqpe and meaning of Rule 6(e), federal-question jurisdiction is also proper under Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 28, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal law neither provides the cause of action nor requires construction of federal law to vindicate the claimed rights.

Fantroy v. Fantroy · filed 2017-02-27

Further, Fantroy’s claims did not arise under federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because federal law did not provide his cause of action, and the vindication of his rights under state law did not require any construction of federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to decide preemption claims raising a question of federal common law about equitable enforcement of a federal statute.

Safe Streets Alliance v. Hickenlooper · filed 2017-06-07

This necessarily raises a question of federal common law: Do the Article III courts’ equitable powers include authority to grant injunctive relief of this type? It is axiomatic that the district court had jurisdiction under § 1331 to answer this question.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under federal common law.

Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo County · filed 2017-07-19

Questions of federal common law present a federal question that can serve as the basis of federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer original jurisdiction when a federal issue arises only as a defense or a later reply in a state-law dispute.

Cook County Republican Party v. Sapone · filed 2017-09-07

That’s not enough to have a claim “arise under” federal law, which is required for original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction for claims arising under state criminal law rather than the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Blodgett v. United States · filed 2017-11-30

First, Mr. Blodgett does not meet the statutory requirements to bring suit in this Court under§ 1495 and§ 1331 because he has not been convicted of an offense against the United States, and his claims do not arise under the Constitution, federal laws, or any treaties; rather, Mr. Blodgett was convicted of an offense against the State of Iowa for crimes arising under Iowa state law.

Section 1331 gives a court jurisdiction when a complaint seeks recovery under federal law; whether that federal claim states a viable cause of action is a merits question.

Zohar CDO 2003-1, Ltd. v. Patriarch Partners, LLC · filed 2017-12-29

Indeed, this Court need only ask whether the "complaint is drawn so as to seek recovery under federal law or the Constitution. If so, then [the court must] assume or find a sufficient basis for jurisdiction, and reserve further scrutiny for an inquiry on the merits."

Section 1331 gives a district court subject-matter jurisdiction over an action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Agosto v. Lina · filed 2018-04-20

The District Court did have subject-matter jurisdiction, however, because this action arose under one of the laws of the United States, namely, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.