28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim merely because the defendants paid federal taxes on the disputed funds.

Langenderfer v. Miller · filed 2025-04-16

First, Plaintiff appears to suggest that the Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Defendants “pay their federal taxes on the monies they obtained.” See id. at 2. This is insufficient. ... Even assuming Defendants paid federal taxes on monies owed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s claim in this case is based on Defendants’ alleged failure to pay Plaintiff, and does not “arise under” any federal tax laws. Nor does the complaint appear to raise any substantial and disputed federal issue.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges discrimination without facts supporting a claim arising under federal law or depending on a federal-law question.

Jacobs v. Surrogate's Court, Queens County and Kings County · filed 2025-04-24

However, even liberally construing Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff does not set forth any facts to support a claim that she was discriminated against based on race, age, gender, or disability, or that her claims arise under federal law or depend on resolution of questions of federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction when a complaint asserts a cause of action under a federal statute.

Kruglyak v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2025-05-06

Here, Kruglyak’s complaint “ar[ose] under the . . . laws . . . of the United States” because Kruglyak brought a cause of action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et. seq., which is a federal statute.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law; the cited state statute does not itself supply that jurisdiction.

Kendal v. Hankook Tire America Corporation · filed 2025-05-30

That state statute cannot, however, provide this court with subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (stating district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” such as federal statutes).

Section 1331 jurisdiction requires a federal claim; a fleeting reference to federal law or the Constitution is insufficient.

Collins v. North Park Lexus of San Antonio · filed 2025-06-24

Accordingly, Collins’ fleeting mention of the “Equal Credit Opportunity Act” (“ECOA”) and “the Bill of Rights” is insufficient to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when none of the complaint’s allegations arise under federal law.

Sowders v. Goldberg · filed 2025-07-07

To begin with, Sowders cannot invoke federal question jurisdiction because none of his allegations “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a civil action to arise under federal law; allegations of fraud and rights violations without an explained federal-law basis do not establish a federal question.

Marriage of Bellinsky · filed 2025-07-17

Civil actions may be removed to federal district court if the action involves a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A federal question is presented when a civil action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Id. ... None of father’s claims explains how these alleged fraudulent actions and purported deprivations of rights arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the complaint references federal statutes.

AVHS AL I, LLC v. Sawyer · filed 2025-08-04

For a court to exercise federal question jurisdiction, the controversy must “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see Wye v. Polk County Sch. Bd., 129 F.3d 560, 566 (11th Cir. 1997). Although the complaint references federal statutes like the Uniform Commercial Code and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the cause of action is for eviction based on Sawyer’s failure to pay the rent due under her lease. Doc. 1-1 at 2. This is a claim under Alabama law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a complaint presents an action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

ANSAH v. MCCALL/LAWRENCE · filed 2025-08-11

Therefore, the complaint does not present let alone sufficiently establish an action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States and federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; merely mentioning federal law in a complaint does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Pelley v. City of Athens, Tennessee · filed 2025-08-11

Merely because some facet of federal law is mentioned in a complaint does not mean that there is a claim in the complaint that arises under federal law for purposes of § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal cause of action or a state-law claim that necessarily turns on the construction of federal law.

Brooks · filed 2025-09-30

The complaint does not explicitly allege a federal cause of action against Defendant and does not otherwise show that the case necessarily turns on the construction of federal law. Plaintiff’s claims appear to be premised largely on contract principles and eviction procedures, see, e.g., Docket No. 1-1 at 3-6, issues that are generally governed by state law. Hence, the complaint does not plead federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents no discernible federal claim.

Safoglu · filed 2025-10-27

28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides district courts with jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... The Court discerns no federal claim that Plaintiff could be asserting against Defendants.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a pleading makes passing references to constitutional rights but does not assert a federal claim.

Bey · filed 2025-11-05

But as Courts have held time and again, “vague, ambiguous, or passing references to federal law in a complaint are not sufficient to support removal based on federal question jurisdiction.” ... While Bey references a purported violation of his constitutional rights, the demand in his operative pleading clarifies that this claim does not arise under section 1983.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state child-support case merely because a party invokes 45 C.F.R. §302.1.

Huiras · filed 2025-11-18

Second, Plaintiff’s invocation of 45 C.F.R. §302.1 does not turn this case into a federal question, nor does it transmute state child support cases into federal cases.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when no federal question appears on the complaint and the claims do not necessarily depend on a substantial question of federal law.

Attenello MD APC v. St. Vincent IPA Medical, L.P. · filed 2025-11-19

Here, Plaintiff’s lawsuit is entirely based on state law claims and no federal question appears on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint. Nor do Plaintiff’s state-law claims necessarily depend on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Garys · filed 2025-11-24

Moreover, plaintiff’s complaint does not assert a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States” and, therefore, she has not established the court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a contract dispute when the claimed right depends on the contract rather than federal law.

ILWU (Hawaii) Employers General Pension Plan v. Hoban E & C USA · filed 2025-12-12

Federal courts have original subject matter jurisdiction4 over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The statute does not provide an independent right to audit, and no court has found to the contrary—the Plan is instead dependent upon contract to provide that right, and a contract dispute, without more, is outside the limited jurisdiction of this Court.

Section 1331 grants jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; a conspiracy claim with no stated federal jurisdictional basis is subject to dismissal.

Pendergraft · filed 2025-12-22

This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. While federal law grants this Court subject- matter jurisdiction over federal employment discrimination claims under Title VII, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state a jurisdictional basis for his conspiracy claim.2 Accordingly, Count 6 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1).

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over an action that asserts a claim under the federal DMCA.

Walsh v. Rokoko Electronics · filed 2025-12-22

As an initial matter, although Rokoko removed based on diversity jurisdiction, (NOR ¶ 6), the Court finds that it has federal question jurisdiction because Walsh brings a cause of action under the federal DMCA, (Compl. 47–49).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because federal law required the warranties underlying a suit.

Ames v. Chestnut Knolls, Inc. · filed 1958-02-06

Certainly, the mere fact that the warranties were required by federal law does not give rise to federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires more than a citation to a federal regulation to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Bellamy · filed 2026-01-12

The mere citation of this regulation, however, is not sufficient to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only for claims arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Gilbert v. Hnery Ford Hospital · filed 2026-01-13

Gilbert cannot invoke federal question jurisdiction because none of her allegations “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a suit to arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; a federal question merely in the background does not suffice.

Rader v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Company Of Philadelphia · filed 1957-03-05

Section 1331, 28 U.S.C., is inapplicable. For jurisdiction to rest on that section the suit must be one arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. ... The plaintiffs do not put in issue the validity, construction, or effect of any law of the United States.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when a federal statute merely authorizes a city to make a contract and the asserted rights arise from the contract under state law.

Royal Gorge Scenic Railway Co. v. Canon City · filed 1962-12-14

After viewing this action in the light cast by the judicial pronouncements in the above cited cases, it does not appear to this Court that the federal nature of the right asserted is substantial enough to afford jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Section 1331 requires a controversy to depend on the construction of the Constitution, a federal law, or a treaty to arise under federal law.

United States Ex Rel. Rollingson v. Blackfeet Tribal Court of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation · filed 1965-08-03

Apart from any question as to jurisdictional amount, is the matter in controversy one “arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331? ... Since the decision in this case does not depend upon the construction of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, it does not meet this basic test.

Section 1331 requires a right created by federal law or the Constitution to be an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action.

Fountain v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. · filed 1967-03-06

Reconstructing the allegation to read that this Court has .jurisdiction because the action “arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States,” and applying, primarily, the well established test that to bring a case within the statute (28 U.S.C. 1331) a right created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an essential element of the plaintiffs’ cause of action (Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112, 57 S.Ct. 96, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936), we find Federal question jurisdiction lacking.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to show that the claimed harm arises under federal law or the Constitution.

Koll v. Wayzata State Bank · filed 1968-07-05

Plaintiff does not assert, nor could he, federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1391. Plaintiff has not shown that his damage “arises under” federal law or the United States’ Constitution.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over common law nuisance claims that present no federal question.

Lavagnino v. Porto-Mix Concrete, Inc. · filed 1971-08-06

Since this Court does not have jurisdiction of these common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1355, we assume the plaintiff relies on diversity jurisdiction because it is the only other section referred to in the complaint as conferring jurisdiction in this Court.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law; a federal defense to a state-law claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Stovall v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. · filed 2026-01-14

For purposes of determining whether federal jurisdiction exists, § 1338 (federal jurisdiction for copyright claims) operates just like § 1331 (general federal-question jurisdiction). Under both statutes, the claim must arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when all causes of action arise under state law, even if the complaint alleges federal-law violations in support of them.

YEWAISIS · filed 2026-01-28

Plaintiff’s causes of action all arise under state law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges copyright infringement independent of a license breach.

DEA Lookup.com, Inc. v. Solstice Benefits · filed 2026-02-20

In sum, the Court finds that each complaint adequately alleges a copyright violation independent of the alleged license breaches, and, therefore, there is federal subject matter jurisdiction over the actions.

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

PLASKON · filed 2026-02-20

WHEREAS there is also no federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s exact cause of action against Ms. Cucci is for common law battery.1 This claim does not arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Accordingly, this Court has no basis for exercising subject matter jurisdiction, and the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over a state-law garnishment claim merely because federal law waives the government’s immunity from garnishment.

Wilhelm v. United States Department of the Air Force, Accounting & Finance Center · filed 1976-08-05

Like jurisdiction founded upon the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides for jurisdiction over any action “arispng] under” the laws of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) predicates original federal jurisdiction on a right created by a federal statute. Section 659 does not create a right to garnishment, but rather, simply abrogates the Government’s immunity to the realization of this right if such a right exists under state law. To prevail ultimately in this action, plaintiff need not advert to any provision of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law foreclosure claim merely because a federal agency holds a lien on the property; the claim must arise under federal law or turn on its construction.

Tennyson · filed 2026-03-23

Accordingly, Lakeview has failed to allege facts that would support the existence of federal question jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a passing reference to constitutional violations does not make the claim arise under federal law.

Bey · filed 2026-03-24

While Plaintiff references ‘constitutional violations,” the demand in his Petition clarifies that this claim does not arise under the Constitution.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint pleads no right to recover under federal law.

Vernon v. Lark · filed 2026-05-11

Vernon’s complaint did not plead a right to recover under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331; La. Indep. Pharmacies Ass’n v. Express Scripts, Inc., 41 F.4th 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2022), and the record establishes that at the time Vernon filed his complaint, both he and Lark were citizens of California, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Storey Mountain, L.L.C. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 159 F.4th 294, 295 (5th Cir. 2025).

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction merely because a plaintiff cites federal cases without showing how the claim arises under federal law.

Klein · filed 2026-05-12

For those reasons, the Court reiterates that it lacks jurisdiction over the action both under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a suit arises under federal law.

Manara v. Saito · filed 2026-06-15

Federal question jurisdiction exists if the suit “arises under” federal law.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff’s own cause of action to show a basis in federal law or the Constitution; citations to federal authorities alone do not establish jurisdiction.

Mitchell v. Haa · filed 2026-06-26

There are two ways to assert subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court: federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “A suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution.” Dutcher, 733 F.3d at 985 (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003)). While Mitchell cites numerous treaties and constitutional provisions in her brief, she does not assert a specific cause of action under any of these legal authorities or plead any facts that indicate she has a federal claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a private contract dispute that requires no interpretation of federal law.

Syres v. Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 23 · filed 1955-08-05

In this situation, the alleged wrongdoing arose from a breach of that contract, which, if proven, would require a reformation or cancellation to comply with the understanding alleged through establishment of a single line of seniority for promotion. It does not require an interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act or any other federal law, and hence all parties on either side must be citizens of different states.

Section 1331(a)'s arising-under requirement is satisfied by a complaint alleging infringement of First Amendment associational rights.

Holman v. Board of Education of City of Flint · filed 1975-01-29(a)

The allegations of plaintiffs’ pleadings certainly fall within the parameters of NAACP v. Alabama, supra,, and thereby satisfy the requirement of 28 U.S.C. 1331(a) that the case must “(arise) under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when resolving a claim necessarily involves a significant federal question.

Rosenberg v. AT & T Employees Federal Credit Union · filed 1989-12-05

Since there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties, plaintiff appears to rely primarily on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as the basis for federal jurisdiction. ... Thus, the issue is whether plaintiff’s claims arise under federal law. Claims are deemed to arise under federal law if the resolution of a federal question necessarily plays a significant role in the proceedings.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a federal statute creates the claim or a substantial question of federal law is a necessary element of it.

Independent Union of Flight Attendants v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., and Pan American Corporation · filed 1991-01-10

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.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an assignee’s claim to enforce ERISA benefits under federal common law.

Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare v. Quaker Medical Care & Survivors Plan · filed 1993-10-28

Therefore, federal jurisdiction was proper under § 1331. ... Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s admonition in Massachusetts Mutual, plaintiffs argument based on federal common law is meritorious. ... The Third Circuit’s holding in Northeast Dept, that an assignee’s attempt to enforce ERISA’s substantive rules states a claim under federal common law remains unaffected by Massachusetts Mutual, and is dispositive of the case at bar.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over TCPA actions because they arise under federal law.

Mittenthal v. Florida Panthers Hockey Club, Ltd. · filed 2020-07-13

And, under 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.” Because an action under the TCPA indisputably arises under the laws of the United States, this case is thus removable.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a claim created by federal law; whether the defendant received federal funds for a Section 504 claim is a merits question.

Winebrenner v. Elizabeth Ives School for Special Children, Inc. · filed 2025-08-01

However, a federal court “ha[s] original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “[A] case arises under federal law when federal law creates the cause of action asserted.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 257 (2013). ... Because a defendant’s receipt of federal funds is an element of a Section 504 claim, the court treats the instant motion as one pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; a complaint that identifies no federal law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Abeyta v. United States Postal Service · filed 2021-09-14

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a suit seeking affirmative relief for injuries allegedly caused by an unconstitutional state statute.

NUI CORP. v. Kimmelman · filed 1984-09-10

In addition to declaratory relief, plaintiff seeks affirmative injunctive relief, both in the form of a new election and against future enforcement of the statute. We find this case to be factually distinct from Exxon Corp., and cases cited therein, and conclude that subject matter jurisdiction is properly grounded in 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over an action brought in part under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Pace v. Hunt · filed 1994-03-23

28 U.S.C. § 1331 sets forth the actions over which federal district courts have original jurisdiction: “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Therefore, from a plain reading of these two statutes, this action brought in part under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is a case arising under the laws of the United States, for which this Court has original jurisdiction.

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 a substantial question of federal law.

Atesom v. Guam Memorial Hospital Authority · filed 2016-09-30

“A case ‘aris[es] under’ federal law within the meaning of § 1331 ... if ‘a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.’” Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 689–90 (2006) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 27–28, (1983)).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a contract-based suit to compel arbitration merely because federal law removes a defense to enforcing the agreement.

United States v. Howard · filed 1978-07-27

In the instant case, the source of the alleged right to compel arbitration derives from the agreement of the parties, not from any federal law. The federal law, as in Gully, simply renounces a previously viable defense. As the Supreme Court observed, this is not sufficient to create federal question jurisdiction. We similarly hold federal question jurisdiction to be absent.

Section 1331(a) does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims whose rights are state in nature, even if those rights originated in a federal statute.

Keaukaha-Panaewa Community Ass'n v. Hawaiian Homes Commission · filed 1978-09-18(a)

We therefore conclude that the Commission Act claims do not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a suit to enforce a labor-protection agreement required by federal law and intertwined with a federal statutory scheme.

Local Division 519, Amalgamated Transit Union, Afl-Cio v. Lacrosse Municipal Transit Utility and City of Lacrosse, Wisco · filed 1978-10-19

In contrast, a 13(c) agreement is so intertwined with the federal statutory scheme that § 1331 subject matter jurisdiction must necessarily arise.

Section 1331(a) permits jurisdiction when federal law directly affects a claim and the federal claim is neither asserted solely to obtain jurisdiction nor wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Alexander v. Polk · filed 1978-10-31(a)

If the federal Constitution or laws directly impact upon the plaintiff’s claim and the complaint appears to be neither “immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” nor “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” the district court acquires jurisdiction under section 1331(a).

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over claims arising from the interpretation or application of federal statutes or the Constitution, including a procedural due process challenge to agency action.

Southern Ohio Coal Co. v. Marshall · filed 1978-11-06

Because plaintiff’s claims in this action draw into question the interpretation or application of the Act and the Constitution, this action is one arising under federal law. ... Accordingly, this Court would ordinarily have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) requires a substantial dispute over a federal issue whose resolution directly affects the plaintiff’s claim.

Compagnie v. Standard Oil Co.(Indiana) · filed 1978-12-07(a)

With this background established, the test for determining whether original federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976) may be stated as follows: A suit arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States where it actually and substantially involves a dispute or controversy concerning the validity or interpretation of such federal issues, the determination of which will have a direct impact on the plaintiff’s success or failure.

Section 1331(a) does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims based on rights that are state-law in nature, even if those rights originated in a federal statute.

Keaukaha-Panaewa Farmers Association v. Hawaiian Homes Commission · filed 1979-01-09(a)

Even though the historical source of these rights was a federal statute, it is the clear state Nature of the rights which governs our decision. ... We therefore conclude that the Commission Act claims do not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises no question of federal common law.

American Invs-Co Countryside, Inc., an Illinois Corporation v. Riverdale Bank, an Illinois Banking Corporation · filed 1979-03-29

Because the plaintiff’s complaint does not raise a question of federal common law, it does not “arise under” federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim merely because it is connected to a federal program; the claim must arise under federal law.

Ippolito-Lutz, Inc. v. Harris · filed 1979-07-10

However, the instant controversy did not arise under that federal law, because federal law did not expressly create the remedy sought by plaintiff and because the determination of plaintiff’s right to relief requires neither the construction and interpretation of the Act nor the application of federal principles in order to vindicate a distinctive policy of the Act. ... Accordingly, this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction to determine plaintiff’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over substantial claims that depend on the construction of federal law.

Spokane County Legal Services, Inc. v. Legal Services Corporation · filed 1980-02-28

The claims, therefore, "really and substantially" involve "a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction, or effect of (a law of the United States), upon the determination of which the result depends." ... We conclude, therefore, that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the suit by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when resolving a claim requires applying federal common law or interpreting a federal statute.

Industrial Indemnity, Inc. v. Moon Landrieu, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development of the United · filed 1980-04-14(a)

We find that the district court below had jurisdiction of the present case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (1976).

Section 1331(a) gives district courts jurisdiction over complaints raising federal questions that are neither frivolous nor insubstantial.

Johnsrud v. Carter · filed 1980-04-23(a)

The complaint raises questions of federal law that we cannot term “frivolous” or “insubstantial” and thus plainly falls within the “arising under” language of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a cognizable claim arising under federal law; conclusory allegations of unlawful interest do not suffice.

Nesglo, Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. · filed 1980-12-02(a)

The alleged usurious claims, therefore, fail to “arise under” said sections as required by the general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 invoked by plaintiffs in paragraph 1 of the Complaint.

Section 1331(a) gives a district court jurisdiction when an action arises under federal law, including when it substantially involves the construction or effect of a federal statute.

Glacier Park Foundation v. Andrus · filed 1981-02-06(a)

This court has jurisdiction if this action can be said to “arise under” the laws of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... In this case, however, the court is satisfied that the relation of federal law to the action is such that it may be said to be one “arising under” that law and, thus, the court has jurisdiction.

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction when resolving a substantial claim depends on construing federal law.

San Juan Legal Services, Inc. v. Legal Services Corporation, San Juan Legal Services, Inc. v. Legal Services Corporation · filed 1981-07-16(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), the question is whether the matter in controversy arises under the laws of the United States. ... An examination of the complaint shows that there is federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a case requires construction of a federal statute or application of federal legal principles arising from a distinctive federal statutory policy.

Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Teamsters Pension Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity · filed 1982-10-13

The Third Circuit has determined that a case can be said to arise under the laws of the United States for purposes of section 1331 jurisdiction when it requires the construction of a federal statute or when a distinctive policy of a federal statute requires the application of federal legal principles for its disposition. ... Both factors appear to be present in this case and therefore I shall assume that federal question jurisdiction exists, at least for the limited purpose of deciding whether an employer has a cause of action for restitution under ERISA, as amended by MEPPA.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a property claim merely because the right once arose under federal law.

State of Wisconsin, Cross-Appellant v. Odric Baker, Cross-Appellees · filed 1983-01-26(a)

That a right of property was at one time governed by federal law or first conveyed by the United States does not render a suit to enforce that right one “arising under” federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state custody dispute merely because federal law limits which state court may decide it.

Crouse v. Creanza · filed 1987-05-01

In this case the right to be established, custody, is created by the state. The fact that § 1738A provides substantive limits to a state’s authority does not substitute federal law as the source of the right. Quite simply, this case does not arise under the PKPA within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 if Gully is still good law.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction when a complaint raises a federal question, including a claim for a remedy under OSHA.

McElroy v. SOS International, Inc. · filed 1989-12-20

Therefore, because it is clear that McEl-roy’s complaint raises a federal question and this court would have had original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the action was properly removed to this court.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims governed by federal common law, including disputes over ERISA benefit plans when ERISA preempts state contract law.

Dugan v. Nickla · filed 1991-04-25

Since this dispute involves interpretation of a provision of an ERISA benefit plan, ERISA preempts state contract law. Federal common law must be applied and, therefore, plaintiffs’ cause of action arises under federal law. Consequently, subject matter jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question, and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment will be considered.

Section 1331 includes federal common law within the laws of the United States for federal-question jurisdiction.

Grynberg Production Corp. v. British Gas, P.L.C. · filed 1993-03-19

For purposes of determining whether a case is one “arising under the ... laws ... of the United States,” the word “laws” in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 includes the federal common law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over ERISA-related federal common law claims even when ERISA’s express jurisdictional provision does not apply.

Nunez v. Monterey Peninsula Engineering · filed 1994-11-07

Accordingly, this Court finds that plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint presents questions of federal common law for which subject matter jurisdiction exists under the federal question statute, Section 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that can succeed on an independent state-law theory, even if another theory relies on federal law.

Casey v. Rainbow Group, Ltd · filed 1997-02-20

When the federal aspect of a plaintiff’s claim “is not necessary to the overall success” of the claim, it cannot be said to “arise under” federal law. ... In light of our decision in Willy, it is clear that the plaintiffs’ allegations on their face do not allow for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim for breach of a Standard Flood Insurance Policy because federal common law governs the policy and the complaint raises a substantial federal question.

Newton v. Capital Assurance Company, Inc. · filed 2000-04-20

We now clarify that the district court had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims that do not arise under federal law.

Livingston v. Shore Slurry Seal, Inc. · filed 2000-05-31

Because plaintiffs' claims do not “aris[e] under” these statutes, they cannot form the basis for federal question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state common law claims that turn solely on interpreting a contract.

Vis Vires Group, Inc. v. Endonovo Therapeutics, Inc. · filed 2016-03-01

For that reason, these six common law causes of action do not “arise under” federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when a complaint’s facts allege a federal claim that is not wholly insubstantial or frivolous, even if the complaint does not name the federal statute.

Robert J. Caluda, APLC v. New Orleans City · filed 2019-07-22

The Court finds Plaintiffs’ federal claim is not obviously without merit or so unsound as to deprive this Court of federal question jurisdiction. As a result, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ claims against Linebarger and UGSL arises under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(c)(1)(A).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction for cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Taylor v. Charter · filed 2020-02-03

The instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; the Federal Arbitration Act alone does not supply an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Searcy v. Smith · filed 2020-05-06

Second, there is also no federal question jurisdiction as to the plaintiff’s claims against Prometric and Sawicki because the action does not arise under the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the complaint cites HIPAA and the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Dumay v. Episcopal Health Services Inc. · filed 2020-06-18

Accordingly, based on the information contained in the state court complaint and the Notice, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims do not give rise to a federal question as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.1 As the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to rule on Defendant’s motion to dismiss and remands this action to state court for further proceedings.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint, read with an incorporated charge of discrimination, alleges claims under federal statutes.

Gist v. Centene Management Company, LLC · filed 2021-07-22

The Court holds that Gist’s cause of action was properly removed because she alleges a claim under federal statutes, the ADEA and ADA. See 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on federal common law when state-law claims seek to remediate municipal stormwater systems rather than interstate waters.

City Of Evanston v. Monsanto Company · filed 2024-03-11

Defendants’ reliance on the finding in Illinois v. City of Milwaukee that “‘pollution of interstate or navigable waters” creates actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is misplaced. ... While the Municipalities allege that the Lake Michigan TMDL was put in place because of contamination in Lake Michigan in particular, the Municipalities’ claims do not involve any remediation or treatment of Lake Michigan or disputes with other states about the cleanup of Lake Michigan. ... Therefore, federal common law does not provide Defendants a basis for removal.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law for federal question jurisdiction.

McCollough v. The Ridgeway Communities · filed 2024-05-22

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff does not invoke any federal law, and the allegations of the complaint do not suggest that he has any readily apparent federal claims against apartment complex Ridgeway Communities, and its employees.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction only when a case arises under federal law; unexplained citations to federal criminal statutes do not establish it.

Monument City Rentals, LLC v. Thompson-Mckoy · filed 2024-06-21

This case clearly does not “aris[e] under” any of the federal law cited by Defendant.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim merely because the complaint refers to a federal housing program.

White v. HANO · filed 2025-05-01

Instead, construing her complaint liberally, it appears Plaintiff is seeking damages pursuant to the theory of negligence, which would arise under state tort law. Plaintiff therefore fails to establish that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over her action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a tribe’s claim for declaratory relief that federal law preempts a state-court proceeding against it.

Navajo Nation v. Dalley · filed 2018-07-24

Lawrence’s analysis is directly applicable here: the Nation here seeks declaratory relief under federal law against state regulation, viz., the state-court proceeding, claiming that federal law preempts it. As such, we properly exercise jurisdiction over this appeal under § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a non-Indian’s federal common law challenge to tribal officials’ exercise of tribal sovereign powers.

Tamiami Partners, Ltd. Ex Rel. Tamiami Development Corp. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida · filed 1994-02-28

The Court concludes that TPL’s amended complaint states a federal common law question as to the non tribal-court defendants; namely, whether these defendants exceeded tribal powers in their actions towards TPL.

Section 1331 does not provide federal jurisdiction over a state-law easement dispute concerning land recently purchased by an Indian tribe.

Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 1994-09-28

Because it would concern a matter of state law, a complaint involving a disputed easement across a tract of land (such as the Theis Ranch), whether brought by the Tribe or the County, would not be entertained in federal district court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1362 (1988) (conferring original jurisdiction on federal district courts over civil actions (§ 1331) “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” and (§ 1362) brought by any Indian tribe or band “wherein the matter in controversy arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a dispute about the meaning of tribal law governing appointments to tribal courts.

Kaw Nation Ex Rel. McCauley v. Lujan · filed 2004-08-16

A dispute over the meaning of tribal law does not “arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” as required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1362.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a tribe’s claim merely because a tribal committee passed a resolution addressing the alleged harm.

PONCA TRIBE OF INDIANS OF OK v. Continental Carbon Co. · filed 2006-07-13

However, neither of these cases stand for the proposition that a resolution passed by a tribal committee creates a federal question and thereby permits the tribe to pursue its claims in federal court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a routine eviction claim merely because a tribal housing authority uses federal funds to house tribal members.

All Mission Indian Housing Authority v. Magante · filed 2007-11-19

Similarly, a standard landlord-tenant dispute cannot be said to arise under federal law simply because the landlord is the housing authority for a number of federally-recognized Indian tribes that is charged with utilizing federal funds to provide subsidized housing to tribal members.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over an action for trespass on Indian lands governed by federal common law.

Steele v. Hernandez · filed 2010-04-21

Contrary to Hilpert’s contention, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 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.”); United States v. Milner, 583 F.3d 1174, 1182 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Federal common law governs an action for trespass on Indian lands.”).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state law claims supported by tribal law when federal agency decisions supply only an alternate theory of relief.

TIMBISHA SHOSHONE TRIBE v. Kennedy · filed 2010-04-27

Because Plaintiffs’ complaint contains allegations based on tribal law to support the state law claims, the BIA decisions are an independent, alternate theory. Thus, Plaintiffs’ claims do not “arise under” federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims governed by federal common law, including disputes over an interstate air carrier’s limitation of liability.

Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. U.S. Air · filed 1994-06-01

Because, as discussed at greater length below, the validity of an interstate carrier’s limitation of liability is governed by federal common law, see, e.g., United States Gold Corp. v. Federal Express Corp., 719 F.Supp. 1217, 1223-26 (S.D.N.Y.1989), the court concludes that it has jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an air carrier customer’s challenge to default-weight billing based on a federal-common-law penalty theory.

Synfuel Technologies, Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc. · filed 2006-09-11

Before the district court, class counsel maintained that jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because its claim arose under “federal common law.” This is obviously wrong.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over federal common law claims for lost or damaged goods transported by a common air carrier.

Treiber & Straub, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2007-01-09

We therefore join our colleagues in holding that a claim for lost or damaged goods transported by a common air carrier arises under federal common law and thus falls within the district court’s federal question jurisdiction.

A third-party-beneficiary claim under a federal government contract arises under federal law for Section 1331 purposes when federal common law determines the parties' rights and obligations.

Commonwealth of Pa. v. National Ass'n of Flood Insurers · filed 1974-07-01(a)

Since federal common law is the applicable decisional body of law for reference, Count II can be said to arise under federal law for the purposes of subject matter jurisdiction.

A claim requiring interpretation of an EEOC conciliation agreement under federal substantive law arises under federal law within Section 1331.

Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. Local Unions 327, 749, 1289, 1298, 1303, 1309 & 1314 of the International Brotherhoo · filed 1975-01-30

In our opinion, inasmuch as the EEOC agreement must be interpreted according to federal substantive law, ... the Company’s cause of action joining EEOC “arises under” laws of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

An action to enforce a contractual right in a collective-bargaining agreement between the federal government and its employees arises under federal law for Section 1331 purposes.

Local 2047, American Federation of Government Employees v. Defense General Supply Center · filed 1978-03-27

Although the district court rejected an attack upon its jurisdiction, it did not articulate its reasons why it held that it had federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Since the action involves the enforcement of a contractual right contained in a collective bargaining agreement between the ... government and its employees, we conclude that federal law governs the enforceability of this right. Accordingly, we find that the case arises under the “laws” of the United States.

A contract claim governed by federal common law presents Section 1331 jurisdiction when substantial federal rights and duties are implicated.

Owens v. Haas · filed 1979-07-09

If federal law applies to the contract claim, then Owens will have a jurisdictional basis for bringing such a claim in federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, even if his § 1983 claim, discussed above, fails. ... Still, in this case there is a sufficient governmental interest in the treatment of federal prisoners to make it desirable that interpretations of rights under federal contracts relating to that area be governed by federal law.

Section 1331 does not cover a tortious-interference claim based on an RLA labor agreement because federal courts lack authority to create a federal common-law tort in that setting.

Baylis v. Marriott Corp. · filed 1988-04-08

However, under the RLA, which governs this case, there is no comparable power to create federal common law. Implying a federal claim for tortious interference would conflict with the strong policy under the RLA of keeping questions of labor contract interpretation out of the federal courts. There is no authority for creating a federal common law tort for this case and federal common law cannot serve here as a source of federal question jurisdiction.

A claim founded on federal common law can arise under Section 1331, including in narrowly defined circumstances where federal Indian-law statutes leave a contract dispute beyond any tribal, federal administrative, or state forum.

Richardson v. Malone · filed 1991-04-08

The United States Magistrate Judge finds that the claim presently at bar, for recovery for breach of contract, under the unique circumstances presented, “arises under” federal common law. This result flows from analysis of the statutory scheme adopted by Congress in dealing with Indian lands.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a federal employee health benefits contract claim governed by federal common law that entirely displaces state contract law.

Caudill v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of North Carolina · filed 1993-04-29

The test for determining the existence of federal question jurisdiction under the removal statute is identical to the jurisdictional test of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, the court must determine whether Caudill’s claim “arose under” United States law. ... In the area of federal employee health benefits, federal common law entirely replaces state contract law. Therefore, federal jurisdiction existed over this claim and removal was proper.

Section 1331 provides federal jurisdiction over claims arising under federal common law to enforce contractual obligations in ERISA plans, including equitable restitution claims.

Health Cost Controls v. Wardlow · filed 1993-06-30

The Sixth Circuit furthermore recognizes a federal common law cause of action for lawsuits “premised on the contractual obligations created by ERISA plans”, including litigation advancing an equitable claim for restitution. ... Such actions arise under federal common law and are entitled to federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over federal employee health benefits contract claims governed by federal common law because that law displaces state contract law.

Caudill v. Blue Cross · filed 1993-07-09

The test for determining the existence of federal question jurisdiction under the removal statute is identical to the jurisdictional test of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, the court must determine whether Caudill's claim "arose under" United States law. ... In the area of federal employee health benefits, federal common law entirely replaces state contract law. Therefore, federal jurisdiction existed over this claim and removal was proper.

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

Pancan International Management Consultants, Inc. v. STS Microscan, Inc. · filed 1993-11-18

Federal jurisdiction is proper only when an action “arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, the conflict between the parties is based upon a contract dispute. Hence, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter on the basis of a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a military pension partition claim grounded in state contract or domestic relations law when the federal statute supplies neither the claim nor an essential element.

Brown v. Harms · filed 1994-09-26

Plaintiffs claim, therefore, does not arise under federal law as required in 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a breach-of-contract claim merely because an Indian tribe is a party and the dispute involves Indian property or contracts.

Veeder v. Omaha Tribe of Nebraska · filed 1994-10-03

The court cannot exercise federal question subject matter jurisdiction simply because one of the parties is an Indian tribe and the ease involves Indian property or contracts.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a breach-of-contract claim based on organizational bylaws merely because those bylaws may result from a federal statutory requirement.

Foschi Ex Rel. Foschi v. United States Swimming, Inc. · filed 1996-02-29

By analogy, the Court finds that there is also no basis for invoking the Court’s jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim based on the USOC bylaws simply because the contract provisions at issue may be the result of a statutory requirement. ... Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 includes claims arising under federal common law, but does not confer jurisdiction over a shipper’s contract claim against a deregulated air carrier when no federal law governs the claim.

Roberts Distributor, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp. · filed 1996-03-04

While § 1337(a) is specifically limited to actions arising under Congressional acts, § 1331’s phrase “laws ... of the United States” includes federal common law as a basis for jurisdiction. ... Because Roberts’ claims do not arise under federal law, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of this case.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a national-security government subcontract dispute when federal common law displaces state law.

New SD, Inc. v. Rockwell International Corp. · filed 1996-04-01

When federal law applies, as American Pipe holds that it does to this type of contract, it follows that the question arises under federal law, and federal question jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a contract dispute governed by federal common law through a choice-of-law clause when the clause is valid under the forum state’s choice-of-law rules and the United States has a substantial interest in the contract.

Danis Industries Corp. v. Fernald Environmental Restoration Management Corp. · filed 1996-11-08

Accordingly, we propose a two-pronged test to determine if the application of federal common law to a contract dispute through a choice-of-law provision creates federal jurisdiction. First, the provision must be valid under the forum state’s choice-of-law rules. Second, the United States must have a substantial interest in the contract being litigated and thus interpretation of the contract would “required resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 requires the controversy itself to arise under federal law; an alleged breach of a loan agreement does not satisfy that requirement merely because the agreement concerns tribal trust land.

Minnesota Chippewa Tribal Housing Corp. v. Reese · filed 1997-03-27

As we have expressed throughout the course of this Opinion, in order for jurisdiction to attach under Section 1331, the matter in controversy must itself arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Here, the matter in controversy is an alleged breach of a loan agreement, and therefore, the matter does not “arise under” Federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a telecommunications payment dispute merely because FCC-filed tariffs control the rates, when the payment obligation arises from a contract and the complaint poses no substantial federal question.

MFS Telecom, Inc. v. Intrepid Communications Solutions, Inc. · filed 1999-03-10

The plaintiffs statement of his case does not convince the Court that the claim either arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” or arises “under an Act of Congress regulating Commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies.” While the rates in the agreement may have been controlled by tariffs filed with the FCC, the crux of the parties’ disagreement — the obligation of the defendant to pay — arises out of the agreement itself. The cause of action is based on breach of contract and is not created by the Communications Act. The plaintiffs complaint does not pose a substantial federal question. This is a mere contract dispute and does not, on these facts, belong in federal court.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a complaint alleging infringement of a valid copyright and seeking remedies under the Copyright Act, even when the defendant characterizes the dispute as contractual.

Perry v. Sonic Graphic Systems, Inc. · filed 2000-04-11

Plaintiffs Complaint alleges infringement of a valid copyright, and requests remedies allowed pursuant to the federal Copyright Act. This Court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a dispute governed by federal common law when a federal program bears the financial risk under the contract, even if the United States is not a party.

Downey, Michael v. State Farm Fire · 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 sec. 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a trademark ownership dispute when the only substantial issue is how state-law contracts allocate the rights and the trademark claims are entirely derivative.

Int'l Armor & Limo v. Coachbuilder · filed 2001-11-26

Because in this case the only serious dispute is how the contracts of 1986 and 1990 allocate ownership rights in the Moloney name and business history (as applied to stretch limousines), the same principle leads to the conclusion that there is no federal jurisdiction. The dispute arises under the law of contracts; any trademark claims are entirely derivative of the contract issues.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over disputes about limitation of liability in inter-modal carrier contracts of carriage governed by federal common law.

Mudd-Lyman Sales & Service Corp. v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2002-11-26

Federal common law occupies the field, and a dispute relating to limitation of liability in an inter-modal carrier contract of carriage, like the one presently before the Court, is properly adjudicated pursuant to the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint mentions unidentified federal laws only as part of a breach-of-contract claim.

Smith v. DELAWARE FIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION · filed 2005-10-25

Plaintiffs, however, fail to identify any applicable federal laws and mention these “Federal Laws” only as a part of their breach of contract claim. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over contract claims based on a promise to award a federal-project subcontract when the claims are not uniquely federal in character.

Vetro, Inc. v. Active Plumbing and Heating, Inc. · filed 2005-12-13

Therefore, based on the rationale of the court in Northrop v. AIL Systems, and the factual allegations and claims alleged in the complaint, I conclude that the claims and issues in this lawsuit are not uniquely federal in character under the first prong of the test for federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a federal employee health-plan carrier’s contract-derived reimbursement claim against an enrollee following a state-court tort settlement.

Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh · filed 2006-06-15

The question presented is whether 28 U. S. C. §1331 (authorizing jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the . . . laws . . . of the United States”) encompasses the carrier’s action. We hold it does not.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim for unpaid royalties under a publishing license because that claim arises under state contract law.

Chapman, Michael Joe v. Air Leaf Publ Book S · filed 2008-08-28

A claim for money supposedly due as royalties belongs in state court. The judgment of the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a contract claim merely because the disputed property is a federally licensed radio frequency.

Metro Media Broadcasting, Inc. v. Marketing Promotion Network, Inc. · filed 2008-11-03

The mere fact that the property involved in the disputed contract is a federally licensed radio frequency is insufficient to transform the contract claim into one that arises under the FCC licensing statutes. Because the present case does not arise under federal law, this Court does not have original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a contract claim merely because a related obligation arises under federal law, where the requested relief derives exclusively from the contract.

Carnival Corp. v. Operadora Aviomar S.A. de C.V. · filed 2012-08-08

Upon consideration of the claims asserted and the relief requested in the Amended Complaint, the Court finds that, although Plaintiff Carnival’s obligation to its employee arises under federal law, any relief available to Plaintiff Carnival in the instant matter derives exclusively from its contractual relationship with Defendant Aviomar. Accordingly, as the Amended Complaint does not allege any claims arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, the Court finds that Plaintiff Carnival’s claims do not come within the subject matter of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a contract claim when federal law controls the enforcement and interpretation of the agreement.

Eatmon v. Bristol Steel & Iron Works, Inc. · filed 1985-09-03

However, this case, unlike the typical contract case, “arise[s] under federal law,” for purposes of section 1331 federal jurisdiction, since federal law controls the enforcement and interpretation of the executive order conciliation agreement.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over contract claims governed by federal common law, including claims involving contracts with the federal government.

Security Savings Bank v. Director, Office of Thrift Supervision · filed 1992-07-28

However, plaintiff’s contract claims fall within this court’s federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, since the federal common law of contracts applies to contracts with the federal government.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction over a federal common-law nuisance claim concerning interstate navigable waters without requiring diversity or a controversy between sovereigns.

United States Ex Rel. Scott v. United States Steel Corp. · filed 1973-02-27(a)

Such a cause of action has recently been recognized in State of Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, et al., 406 U.S. 91, 92 S.Ct. 1385, 31 L.Ed.2d 712 (1972), and thus this court has jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. § 1331(a). Ace., Washington v. General Motors, 406 U.S. 109, 92 S.Ct. 1396, 31 L.Ed.2d 727 (1972). Section 1331(a) does not require diversity of citizenship and does not require a controversy between sovereignties.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a federal common-law nuisance claim involving interstate waters.

Byram River v. Village of Port Chester, New York · filed 1975-04-08

Without analyzing all of plaintiffs’ various theories of subject matter jurisdiction, it is sufficient to note that federal jurisdiction is properly predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to consider the claim of a nuisance upon interstate waters in violation of federal common law.

Section 1331 does not convert a local public-nuisance claim into a federal claim merely because the conduct occurs on a federal enclave where the state retains concurrent jurisdiction.

Board of Sup'rs of Fairfax County, Va. v. United States · filed 1976-01-23

This Court finds no reason in law or logic that compels the application of state substantive standards to this case and deem that law to be federal for purposes of § 1331(a) jurisdiction. An action to abate a public nuisance is essentially one that arises under local law.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a municipality’s damages claim under the federal common law of interstate water-pollution nuisance.

City of Evansville, Indiana v. Kentucky Liquid Recycling, Inc. · filed 1979-08-09(a)

Three Indiana municipal corporations that use water from the Ohio River bring this action to recover damages incurred because of defendants’ discharges of contaminants into the river from Kentucky. The most important question on this appeal is whether plaintiffs have stated a claim over which the district court had jurisdiction. We hold that a claim is stated under the federal common law of nuisance and that the court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over a dispute concerning whether a waterway is navigable under federal law or falls within a federal navigational servitude.

Gollatte v. Harrell · filed 1989-04-19

The Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as the question of whether Lewis Creek is a navigable waterway of the United States or falls within the navigational servitude of the Tombigbee River is a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a purported federal common law nuisance claim when no specific conflict between federal policy and state law supports applying federal common law.

Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Energy Development Corp. · filed 2004-03-24

Having concluded that the plaintiffs claimed nuisance does not call for the application of federal common law, the court finally considers whether this cause of action is so clearly without merit that it cannot serve as a basis for federal question jurisdiction. ... Based on the court’s examination of the nature of Norfolk Southern’s proffered claim, the court has concluded that there is no basis for the application of federal common law to this dispute and that a claim for the application of federal common law is without merit.

Section 1331 does not cover a standalone substantial-benefit attorney-fee claim merely because federal courts have applied that equitable doctrine; the doctrine is not federal common law.

Sederquist v. Court · filed 1988-11-14

Not every principle of law or equity, not enshrined in a federal statute or regulation, employed by a federal court becomes "federal common law." Federal courts often draw upon the ubiquitous legal culture in which they function to resolve various issues without either cataloging the principle utilized or incorporating it into the federal common law. To hold otherwise would infinitely expand federal jurisdiction. ... We hold therefore that the substantial benefit doctrine is not part of the federal common law.

Section 1331 covers a federal common-law restitution or fraud claim by an ERISA plan when ERISA broadly preempts the state-law claim, even if ERISA’s express jurisdictional provision does not apply.

Kentucky Laborers District Council Health and Welfare Fund, Plaintiff v. Bobby L. Hope, Jr. And Verna Denise Chambers · filed 1988-11-25

We hold that the District Court had jurisdiction to hear appellant’s action. Whether it is phrased as a fraud claim or as an equitable action for restitution, appellant’s claim requires the Court to examine the terms of an ERISA-governed plan. The action, therefore, relates to the plan and is preempted by section 1144(a).

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over claims arising under federal common law when sovereign immunity has been validly waived.

East River Savings Bank v. Secretary of Housing & Urban Development · filed 1988-12-16

Because plaintiff s claim three arises out of federal common law, the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is properly founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... With a valid waiver of sovereign immunity and a proper basis for the Court to assert its subject matter jurisdiction, claim three is properly before the Court.

Section 1331 covers a nonfrivolous federal-common-law unjust-enrichment claim based on a federal housing statute, and the Tucker Act does not displace district-court jurisdiction when a separate statute independently waives sovereign immunity.

C.H. Sanders Co., Inc. v. Bhap Housing Development Fund Company, Inc. · filed 1990-05-08

Rather, Sanders, “simply by alleging a cause of action, not patently frivolous on its face, that purportedly arises under a federal statute, ha[s] made allegations sufficient to sustain subject matter jurisdiction in the district court.” ... We hold that the district court had federal question jurisdiction over Sanders' second cause of action, arising under federal common law and the statute authorizing the loan. 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1701q. ... We hold that an action (regardless of the amount sought) may be commenced under Sec. 1331 in the district court provided there is an independent waiver of sovereign immunity outside the Tucker Act.

Section 1331 supports a nonfrivolous federal-common-law unjust-enrichment claim against HUD, and the Tucker Act does not displace district-court jurisdiction when a separate statute waives sovereign immunity.

C.H. Sanders Co. v. BHAP Housing Development Fund Co. · filed 1990-05-08

We hold that the district court had federal question jurisdiction over Sanders’ second cause of action, arising under federal common law and the statute authorizing the loan. 12 U.S.C. § 1701q. ... We hold that an action (regardless of the amount sought) may be commenced under § 1331 in the district court provided there is an independent waiver of sovereign immunity outside the Tucker Act.

Sections 1331 and 1345 give district courts jurisdiction over the United States' federal-common-law quasi-contract action to recover taxes paid by mistake, and state characterization or procedural restrictions do not convert it into a state-law claim.

United States v. Broward County, Florida, William Markham, Broward County Appraiser, Joseph E. Rosenhagen, Broward Count · filed 1990-05-21

There is no doubt that the district court had jurisdiction to entertain this action. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1345, the district court has original jurisdiction of all civil actions brought by the United States unless Congress specifically provided otherwise. And 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 confers jurisdiction upon district courts to entertain civil actions arising under federal law. ... But the cause of action asserted by the government is not a state law judicial remedy or ... cause of action but is a federal common law cause of action in quasi-contract for money had and received.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction when the United States seeks to enforce a right granted by federal law.

United States v. Rapoca Energy Co. · filed 1990-11-07

The United States is in this court attempting to enforce a right granted under federal law. Thus, this court is exercising its federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.

Section 1331, together with Sections 1345 and 1355, gives a district court jurisdiction over a United States action enforcing federal Indian-law penalties and regulations.

United States v. Plainbull · filed 1990-11-27

This Court finds that it may properly exercise jurisdiction over the claims asserted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345 and 1355, and will proceed to consider the merits of defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over federal common-law claims for equitable restitution against the government when sovereign immunity has been waived.

Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Lujan · filed 1991-07-24

In addition, “federal common law is part of the ‘laws of the United States’ for the purpose of § 1331 jurisdiction.” ... Thus, the Court has jurisdiction to consider Thermal’s and Wesco’s claims for restitution.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over common-law tort claims when a complaint’s discrimination label lacks facts suggesting protected status or discriminatory animus.

Malone v. District of Columbia Housing Authority · filed 2009-11-19

A federal district court has jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, however, the complaint asserts claims or facts supporting claims for common law torts including, among other things, harassment, libel, slander, trespass, breach of contract, negligence, and destruction of property. Although the opening paragraph of the complaint describes it as one for "discrimination," there are no facts alleging or otherwise stating or implying that the plaintiff is a member of a protected group or that any defendant has acted on the basis of discriminatory animus. Therefore, the Court is unable to discern a basis for jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331(a) jurisdiction may rest on federal common law, but no jurisdiction exists when the asserted category of federal common law does not exist.

Don Boyster and James Shoffner v. O. R. Roden, Michael Hare and Phillip Lassiter · filed 1980-09-02(a)

Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) may rest on federal common law. ... We decline to do so and we affirm the district court’s order of dismissal.

Section 1331(a) does not supply jurisdiction over private Agent Orange tort claims because no identifiable federal policy made federal common law govern them.

In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation · filed 1980-11-24(a)

We conclude, therefore, that the district court erred in ruling that plaintiffs’ claims were governed by federal common law.

A tortious-interference claim involving a labor contract arises under federal common law and falls within Section 1331 jurisdiction.

Wilkes-Barre Publishing Co. v. Newspaper Guild Of Wilkes-Barre · filed 1981-05-15

We hold, therefore, that a claim of tortious interference with a labor contract is one arising under federal common law over which the district court has jurisdiction. 29 U.S.C. § 185(a); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337.

Section 1331 jurisdiction may rest on federal common law, including the federal question whether an Indian tribe retains inherent sovereign authority over non-Indians.

Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe · filed 1981-07-14

That federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 can be based on federal common law is well-settled. ... Under the present circumstances, this Court would find that the question whether the Navajo Tribe has retained the inherent sovereign authority to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs is a sufficient federal question upon which to base § 1331 jurisdiction.

In a Section 1331 action arising under federal law, federal law governs whether an attorney may bind a party through evidentiary stipulations in federal court.

United States v. Texas · filed 1981-07-30

But neither reason nor precedent supports relying on state law to determine whether an attorney may enter into evidentiary stipulations in a federal court exercising its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction over claims governed by federal common law when national uniformity is an intended feature of a federal program.

Schell v. National Flood Insurers Ass'n · filed 1981-08-27(a)

In spite of this lack of statutory obligation, I find that this court still has jurisdiction over the claims against CNA and NFIA under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). Congress intended the National Flood Insurance Program to be uniform throughout the country. ... Because federal common law controls, this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

When Section 1331 jurisdiction rests on a federal age-discrimination claim, federal common law supplies the rule of decision and may borrow compatible state common-law principles.

Germann v. Pekow · filed 1982-01-22

Because this action is grounded on the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the rule of decision is provided by the “federal common law” of accord and satisfaction. ... Of course federal courts may “borrow” the state rule of decision where not inconsistent with the federal policy served by the substantive federal law.