28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 covers a federal common-law action when uniquely federal interests require the available common-law remedy to be federal.

Gene F. Barany and Helen L. Elliott v. Buller · filed 1982-02-10

Consequently, jurisdiction, if it exists at all, must be posited under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which generally confers district court jurisdiction over actions arising under federal law. ... However, we conclude that the available common law remedy must be federal.

Section 1331’s reference to federal laws encompasses federal common law as well as federal statutory law.

Eastern Industries, Inc. v. Joseph Ciccone & Sons, Inc. · filed 1982-02-16

By use of the plural “laws” in § 1331, Congress intended courts to have jurisdiction over claims founded on federal common law as well as federal statutory law.

Section 1331 encompasses civil actions arising under federal common law even when the governing principles are not drawn from a specific federal statute or treaty.

Cardin v. De La Cruz · filed 1982-03-15

The district court correctly held that it had jurisdiction to hear this suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives district courts jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Since this action thus arises under federal common law, it falls within the general federal-question jurisdiction conferred by § 1331.

Section 1331 jurisdiction may rest on federal common law, but a federal government contract does not make a private third-party-beneficiary dispute federal absent a significant federal interest requiring federal law.

Charest v. Olin Corp. · filed 1982-06-29

It is true that jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) may rest on federal common law. ... However, the fact that the contract is or may be subject to federal law or federal regulation does not, in itself, demonstrate that Congress meant that all aspects of its performance or nonperformance were to be governed by federal law rather than state law or that issues surrounding the contract may only be resolved in federal court.

A pre-Erie federal common-law decision does not create a presently viable right under the laws of the United States sufficient for Section 1331 jurisdiction.

Joseph F. O’TOOLE & Marjorie C. O’Toole, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. ARLINGTON TRUST COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee · filed 1982-07-26

This common law case predates ... and does not now create a right that is viable under the “laws of the United States”, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Federal common law is a law of the United States for § 1331 purposes, so a contract claim governed by federal common law arises under federal law.

Equitable Trust Co. v. G & M Construction Corp. · filed 1982-08-09

Federal common law is a “law of the United States” for jurisdictional purposes. ... The contract claim thus arises under federal law, and jurisdiction over ET’s contract claim against G & M may be predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

After abolition of the amount-in-controversy requirement, § 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a railroad collective-bargaining contract claim governed by federal common law.

Graf v. Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company, and Brotherhood of Railway Carmen, Local No. 882 · filed 1983-01-07

Now that the amount in controversy requirement has been abolished in federal question cases, it hardly matters whether this area of federal common law is regarded as a thing apart from the Railway Labor Act, so that federal jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or as a part of the Act, so that jurisdiction also lies under section 1337.

Section 1331 gives a federal district court jurisdiction to determine whether a tribal court exceeded the lawful limits of its civil jurisdiction over non-Indians because the scope of tribal sovereignty is governed by federal common law.

National Farmers Union Insurance Companies v. Crow Tribe of Indians · filed 1983-01-26

This Federal District Court has the jurisdictional power under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to determine whether the Tribal Court has exceeded the lawful limits of its jurisdiction.... That federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 can be based on federal common law is well settled.

Federal common law supports § 1331(a) jurisdiction only when dispositive issues require application of federal common law.

First Hawaiian Bank v. Alexander · filed 1983-02-25(a)

Federal common law can be a basis for 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) jurisdiction. ... Only where dispositive issues require the application of federal common law will § 1331(a) be invoked.

An action governed by federal common law arises under federal law for purposes of Section 1331.

City of Springfield v. Washington Public Power Supply System · filed 1983-03-15

When federal common law governs an action, the action “arises-under” federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 jurisdiction may rest on federal common law, including case law defining the limits of tribal sovereign authority over non-Indians.

Snow v. Quinault Indian Nation · filed 1983-07-07

Federal question jurisdiction can be based on case law. ... As Snow’s action raises the issue of tribal sovereign powers, a sufficient federal question is presented upon which to base § 1331 jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction over state-law tort claims merely because a plaintiff asks the court to create equivalent federal common-law torts where state law adequately protects the relevant interests.

Benedetto v. National Association of Letter Carriers · filed 1984-05-23

The only rationale which we can imagine for Plaintiff’s ardent efforts to persuade us to recognize new federal common law torts is that Plaintiff is attempting to create federal jurisdiction where it would not otherwise exist, and that is an endeavor in which we have no intention of assisting him.

Section 1331 grants jurisdiction over federal-law rights and remedies but does not itself create jurisdiction over state common-law tort claims merely because the defendants are federal officials.

Knight v. United States · filed 1984-08-28

Nor does 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provide a basis here for “Federal question” jurisdiction over the individual officials. Section 1331 is merely the grant of subject matter jurisdiction over rights and remedies otherwise provided by Federal law; it is not a separate basis for jurisdiction over the common law tort claims raised by these plaintiffs.

Section 1331 covers claims governed by federal common law when a comprehensive federal regulatory scheme displaces state law, including claims about charges for foreign communications.

Nordlicht v. New York Telephone Co. · filed 1985-05-02

Both are within the Act’s regulatory scheme. As a result, federal jurisdiction exists, and whatever claims plaintiff is raising are governed by federal, not state, common law.

Section 1331 does not cover common-law slander and privacy claims merely because the defendants are local officials, absent a connection to the alleged deprivation of a federal right.

Morgan v. Whitt · filed 1985-06-19

Without that connexity, plaintiff’s complaint is nothing more than a common-law action for slander and invasion of privacy, which the court has no authority to entertain absent an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction extends to claims arising under federal common law as well as claims arising directly under federal statutes.

Grumman Ohio Corporation v. Elizabeth Hansford Dole, Secretary U.S. Department of Transportation · filed 1985-11-15

has found section 1331 jurisdiction to lie in an action arising under federal common law. ... Such a claim was held to establish section 1331 jurisdiction. Since this sort of claim is made in this case, and is in fact the only reasonable basis for the relief sought, we conclude that federal question jurisdiction indeed exists here.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction for claims arising under federal common law, and such claims remain within state courts' concurrent jurisdiction absent extraordinary circumstances establishing exclusivity.

Harold Nordlicht, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. New York Telephone Company · filed 1986-08-25

We therefore conclude that all of Nordlicht’s claims arise under federal common law and that section 1331 provides a jurisdictional basis for his suit. ... Mindful of the cautions expressed by the Supreme Court concerning exclusivity of federal statutory claims, we think it would take a truly extraordinary set of circumstances to demonstrate that a claim arising under federal common law is within exclusive federal court jurisdiction. ... Since the New York Supreme Court had concurrent jurisdiction over these claims, the District Court properly exercised derivative removal jurisdiction over them.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over claims governed by federal common law as well as claims created by federal statutes.

Whitworth Bros. Storage Company v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, Defendants · filed 1986-08-26

It is clear that Whitworth’s claim, governed by federal common law, arises under federal law for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Thus, since Whitworth’s action for restitution is governed by federal common law, it “arises under” federal law for purposes of § 1331. Accordingly, the district court erred in concluding that it had no jurisdiction over the case.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction when a claim necessarily requires a federal court to decide whether to honor a foreign government’s request to freeze property in the United States.

Republic of Philippines v. Marcos · filed 1986-11-26

We hold that federal jurisdiction is present in any event because the claim raises, as a necessary element, the question whether to honor the request of a foreign government that the American courts enforce the foreign government's directives to freeze property in the United States subject to future process in the foreign state.

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction over claims governed by federal common law when a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal interests.

Eureka Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Kidwell · filed 1987-06-03(a)

Eureka’s causes of action alleging a breach of fiduciary duty by the defendants, former officers, directors, and employees of Eureka, will be governed by the federal common law, which in turn serves as the basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 supplies original jurisdiction over claims governed by federal common law, including an interstate air carrier's liability for lost goods.

Angela Cummings, Inc. v. Purolator Courier Corp. · filed 1987-07-20

Defendant's conduct is thereby governed by federal common law, which, pursuant to § 1331, confers original jurisdiction upon this court.

In a Section 1331 federal-question case, federal common law governs prejudgment interest and the trial court has discretion to set the rate when the governing federal statute is silent.

Amoco Production Co. v. United States · filed 1987-07-01

It is well-established that where a federal court has federal question jurisdic ... tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and where the federal statute governing the substantive law is silent, the rate of prejudgment interest is discretionary with the trial court.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over claims founded on federal common law, including colorable claims arising under customary international law.

Forti v. Suarez-Mason · filed 1987-10-06

Section 1331 provides that “[t]he district courts shall have jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” This statute provides jurisdiction over claims founded on federal common law. ... Thus, a case presenting claims arising under customary international law arises under the laws of the United States for purposes of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 can support claims founded on federal common law, but jurisdiction is not established when no clear authority makes the alleged common-law negligence rule federal rather than state law.

Singleton v. Searail Industries, Inc. · filed 1987-12-04

Because of this judicial reluctance to find that federal common law controls, combined with the lack of clear authority for utilizing federal common law in a negligence action against customs officials and with the parties’ failure to enlighten the Court on this issue, the Court concludes that the existence of federal question jurisdiction with respect to plaintiff’s negligence claim against the individual defendants has not been satisfactorily established.

ERISA-preempted contract claims governed by federal common law arise under federal law for Section 1331 purposes.

Ryan-Walsh Stevedoring Co. v. Cormier · filed 1987-12-16

... complaints here, which may be said to arise under federal common law, ERISA, the LMRA or all three.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over a state’s suit seeking a declaration that its own action is constitutional, even if the defendant could bring a federal claim.

Missouri Ex Rel. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission v. Cuffley · filed 1997-05-07

... a declaratory judgment suit brought by a state to uphold the constitutionality of its action is not within the federal- question jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction solely because a plaintiff requests relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Ryan v. Best In Slot LLC · filed 2025-09-10

And this Court does “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” typically referred to as federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. But sections “2201 and 2202, which comprise the Declaratory Judgment Act,” do “not create subject matter jurisdiction where none otherwise exists.” Jarrett v. Resor, 426 F.2d 213, 216 (9th Cir. 1970). “It only creates a particular kind of remedy available in actions where the district court already has jurisdiction to entertain a suit.” Id. Thus, Ryan’s reference to the Declaratory Judgment Act does not confer jurisdiction on this Court, either.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to support jurisdiction; a claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act alone is insufficient.

Carlotta v. Higher Education Loan Authority of The State Of Missouri Inc. · filed 2025-03-25

Indeed, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 still requires a federal question to form the basis of her claim, and, as established above, a claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act alone is not sufficient.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction solely because a plaintiff seeks relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Tankoano v. Jaddou · filed 2023-01-25

The Declaratory Judgment Act does not independently confer jurisdiction. See Frye v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., 953 F.3d 285, 293 (5th Cir. 2019) (“A claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act does not confer federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”).

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot be established by invoking the Declaratory Judgment Act or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 alone.

Celli v. Weingarten · filed 2022-01-31

In his amended complaint, Celli describes his suit as “an action for declaratory judgment pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment[] Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201–2202, and Rule 57 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.” Am. Compl. at 2. Neither is sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction merely because a plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

Price v. Depository Trust and Clearing Company · filed 2019-11-05

In his complaint, Price seeks a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that certain property allegedly “taken” by Defendants belongs to Price. Because the statute does not independently confer subject matter jurisdiction on this Court, Moher v. United States, 875 F. Supp. 2d 739, 769 (W.D. Mich. 2012), diversity jurisdiction the only basis for subject matter jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the show cause order, this Court is unable to conclude that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332 and, therefore, dismisses the action without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action involving a state contract claim when resolving the dispute requires deciding a substantial federal issue.

Iberiabank v. Beneva 41-1, LLC · filed 2012-11-30

This court has jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Although the anticipated cause of action here is a state contract claim, resolution of the dispute requires interpretation of a substantial federal issue.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a claim seeks relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Chevron Corp. v. Donziger · filed 2011-03-07

The Declaratory Judgment Act does not confer federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

In a declaratory action, Section 1331(a) jurisdiction exists only if the coercive action that otherwise would have been necessary could have been brought in federal court.

First Nat. Bk. of Shawnee Mis. v. Roeland Pk. St. B. & T. Co. · filed 1973-03-26(a)

In a declaratory judgment action, however, Professor Wright maintains that the court’s determination of the issue is based on a somewhat different standard: an action may be entertained in federal court “only if the coercive action that would have been necessary, absent declaratory judgment procedure, might have been so brought.” ... In this instance, the coercive action which defendants could have brought is an action for judicial review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702 to enjoin the Comptroller from issuing an allegedly illegal charter and the plaintiff bank from operating under said charter. ... We think the federal nature of the claim asserted is readily apparent.

The Declaratory Judgment Act supplies a remedy but no independent jurisdictional basis, so a federal declaratory action must rely on Section 1331(a) or another jurisdictional grant.

First Presbyterian Church of Schenectady v. UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN UNITED STATES · filed 1977-03-11(a)

It is settled law, however, that the Declaratory Judgment Act only “enlarged the range of remedies available in the federal courts;” it did not furnish the federal courts with an additional jurisdictional basis for entertaining litigation. ... Plaintiff, therefore, must necessarily rely upon the general federal question statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

A declaratory-judgment action arises under federal law for Section 1331(a) purposes when it challenges a threatened federal claim, but not when it merely asserts a federal defense to a threatened state-law proceeding.

Arden-Mayfair, Inc. v. Louart Corp. · filed 1977-07-19(a)

Nonetheless, it is well established that a declaratory judgment action seeking to establish the invalidity of a threatened claim based on federal law “arises under” federal law, ... while a declaratory judgment action seeking to establish a federal defense to a threatened proceeding based on state law does not. ... Applying these principles to the instant case mandates the conclusion that if this action had been brought initially in federal court, it would not have been within federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331(a) permits declaratory review of a valuable federal immigration preference status without requiring the plaintiff to await a deportation order.

Navarro v. District Director of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service · filed 1977-09-13(a)

We are of opinion that the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, furnishes a basis for her invocation of federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), to have this right declared, and that she need not await a deportation order.

Section 1331(a), together with the Declaratory Judgment Act, permits a plaintiff to establish immigration preference status without waiting for a deportation order.

Navarro v. District Director of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service · filed 1978-04-12(a)

We are of opinion that the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, furnishes a basis for her invocation of federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), to have this right declared, and that she need not await a deportation order.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over an action seeking a declaratory judgment about rights arising under a federal statute.

Fairbank v. Brown · filed 1980-12-31

That motion is denied. Because Fairbank seeks a declaratory judgment in an action arising under a federal statute, jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A declaratory action does not arise under federal law for Section 1331 when it seeks only to establish a federal defense to a pending state-law contract suit that itself presents no federal question.

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Gold Bondholders Protective Council, Inc. · filed 1981-01-15

Accordingly, since it is clear that Santa Fe seeks to establish through this declaratory action a defense to the Alaska suit and any other threatened litigation concerning its gold clause, federal jurisdiction is proper only if the complaint in the pending state action in Alaska properly raises a federal question. The Court finds that it does not. ... Accordingly, because the pending Alaska suit could not properly raise a federal question, the declaratory action in this Court similarly does not contain the proper jurisdictional predicate and must be dismissed.

A declaratory plaintiff cannot create Section 1331 jurisdiction by asserting federal preemption that would function only as a defense to a potential state-law claim.

Lawrence County, South Dakota v. State Of South Dakota · filed 1982-01-20

This defensive assertion of the preemption doctrine, however, cannot convert the action into one arising under federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a declaratory action that anticipates federal constitutional defenses to a prospective state-law suit.

Southern Trust Insurance v. Griner · filed 1982-09-21

The underlying controversy in this case involves matters purely of state law. Defendant’s potential complaint, as foreshadowed by his counterclaim, rests strictly upon state insurance law. Nowhere does it appear that a federal question will be raised. Within the framework of a declaratory judgment action, the gauge for determining the existence of federal question jurisdiction is the character of the potential suit. ... Moreover, where the alleged federal right is in reality a defense, a declaratory judgment action cannot be employed to advance that defense in anticipation of a prospective lawsuit. ... The anticipation of a defense will not confer jurisdiction. ... Thus, this court is without subject matter jurisdiction over this action in as much as there is no federal question jurisdiction present.

Section 1331(a) supports a declaratory action asserting federal preemption when the complaint seeks affirmative injunctive relief rather than merely anticipating a federal defense.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. v. Ilsley · filed 1982-09-30(a)

Here not only is a right being asserted on the face of the complaint, but an injunction is also being affirmatively sought to prevent interference with that right. This claim raises federal question jurisdiction. ... the equitable considerations necessary to support the issuance of an injunction are sufficiently alleged, jurisdiction under § 1331(a) clearly exists since a declaratory judgment action may be entertained even where further relief is unavailable. 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (1976). ... The declaratory claim asserted is not merely a defense, but affirmative and coercive relief is sought ... way of an injunction.

Section 1331 supports a declaratory challenge asserting federal preemption and Commerce Clause rights when the plaintiff must comply with state law or risk criminal sanctions.

Mason and Dixon Lines, Inc. v. Eagerton · filed 1982-12-15

There exists a real controversy between the parties in which the plaintiff faces clear injury due to an abrogation of its federal rights. For these reasons the Court concludes that it does have subject matter jurisdiction over this cause.

Section 1331 does not support a declaratory action to enforce state law when the federal constitutional question would arise only as the defendants' anticipated defense.

Keith v. Louisiana Department of Education · filed 1982-12-20

Since the plaintiffs have chosen not to add the Governor or the Attorney General as plaintiffs, the Court finds that the federal question asserted by the defendants arises only as a defense to plaintiffs’ attempt to enforce a state law. Therefore, the Court lacks federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer original or removal jurisdiction over a state declaratory-judgment complaint presenting a federal question when the well-pleaded-complaint rule would bar jurisdiction over an equivalent federal declaratory action.

Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal. · filed 1983-06-24

Therefore, we hold that under the jurisdictional statutes as they now stand ... federal courts do not have original jurisdiction, nor do they acquire jurisdiction on removal, when a federal question is presented by a complaint for a state declaratory judgment, but ... would bar jurisdiction if the plaintiff had sought a federal declaratory judgment.

Section 1331 does not support a declaratory action against a private complainant with no enforcement or investigative powers, and the Declaratory Judgment Act supplies no independent jurisdiction.

Lotz Realty Co., Inc. v. United States Department Of Housing And Urban Development · filed 1983-09-19

In the context of general federal questions, it is difficult to see how the League, a wholly private party with no enforcement or investigative powers, can under these circumstances be a defendant under Sec. 1331. ... Jurisdiction, however, cannot be rested on the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Section 1331 does not support a declaratory action against a private complainant with no enforcement or investigative powers, and the Declaratory Judgment Act supplies no independent jurisdiction.

Lotz Realty Co. v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development · filed 1983-09-19

In the context of general federal questions, it is difficult to see how the League, a wholly private party with no enforcement or investigative powers, can under these circumstances be a defendant under § 1331. ... Jurisdiction, however, cannot be rested on the Declaratory Judgment Act.

A declaratory-judgment action cannot establish Section 1331 jurisdiction merely by anticipating a federal defense to a threatened state-law action.

Postscript Enterprises, Inc. v. Westfall · filed 1985-08-27

This principle has since been restrictively applied to defeat subject matter jurisdiction only where such jurisdiction is premised on a federal question. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Sections 1331 and 2201 give a district court jurisdiction over a federal declaratory-judgment counterclaim concerning water rights appurtenant to condemned land.

United States v. 129.4 Acres of Land · filed 1986-05-08

We hold, therefore, that the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2201 over the Navy’s counterclaim for a declaratory judgment.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a declaratory action when the federal issue would arise only as a defense to a coercive state-law action.

United Pacific Insurance v. Montana ex rel. Department of Agriculture · filed 1986-09-03

Thus a determination of whether a federal question exists within the meaning of section 1331 requires the Court to determine whether, absent the availability of declaratory relief, the action nonetheless could have been brought in federal court. ... The dispute between the parties clearly is grounded in state law, and any federal issue merely would be a defense to a coercive action in state court. Under the controlling precedent, this case cannot be said to “arise under” the Constitution or laws of the United States.

A declaratory-judgment action falls within Section 1331 when the declaratory defendant’s hypothetical coercive action would necessarily present a federal cause of action.

Gulf States Paper Corporation v. Ingram · filed 1987-03-09

Therefore, Gulf States’ suit here that merely anticipates Ingram’s federal claim against it falls within section 1331 jurisdiction via the bootstrapping mechanism of the declaratory judgment suit.

Section 1331 independently supports a declaratory action when the complaint presents a federal question about a federal official's statutory duties.

Tashima v. Administrative Office of the United States Courts · filed 1989-06-07

A declaratory judgment suit must conform to traditional jurisdictional requirements, and the Act “merely provides procedural and remedial flexibility to the federal courts.” ... Petitioner, however, has pleaded the existence of a federal question concerning the scope of respondents’ duties under 28 U.S.C. § 463, and jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

For Section 1331 jurisdiction over a declaratory-judgment action, the court asks whether the declaratory defendant's hypothetical coercive action would necessarily present a federal question.

Collin County v. Homeowners Ass'n for Values Essential to NeighBorhoods (Haven) · filed 1989-06-30

The court determines whether any hypothetical coercive suit by the declaratory judgment defendant would necessarily present a federal question. ... While it is true that the court must ... examine the hypothetical coercive action of the declaratory judgment defendant for the presence of a federal question, that inquiry ends with the determination that the court has subject matter jurisdiction.

A declaratory action invokes Section 1331 when the only element of the underlying state claim necessarily turns on interpreting federal law, rather than merely anticipating a federal defense.

Fort Wayne Community Schools v. Fort Wayne Education Ass'n · filed 1990-04-12

Thus the federal question is not simply one element of the Union’s state cause of action; it is the only element, the resolution of which “necessarily turns” upon the interpretation of federal law. The School System’s action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Teachers Union thus invokes this court’s federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

The Declaratory Judgment Act supplies a remedy rather than jurisdiction, but Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction when the declaratory claim arises under federal law.

Wells v. United States · filed 1990-04-19

The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, allows federal courts to give declaratory judgments as a remedy in cases in which it already has jurisdiction. It does not provide a grant of jurisdiction but merely an additional remedy. ... As this case arises under federal law, it falls within the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Accordingly, the government’s argument that the court lacks jurisdiction over the claim for declaratory relief fails.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is not established solely by seeking relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

St. Marys Bank v. Creme Inc. · filed 1997-08-22

It is clear that plaintiff has not presented the court with a federal guestion. The federal declaratory judgment act merely creates a remedy; it does not enlarge the jurisdiction of the federal courts or confer jurisdiction in its own right.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment claim when the federal issue would arise only as a defense to a state-law action.

Webster County Lumber Co. v. Wayne · filed 2003-03-24

It is clear that the federal claim in question would arise only in response to a state-created action, either as a defense to a state law claim (such as trespass or some variant of a quiet title action) brought by appellees, or to respond to appellees’ invocation of the Tax Deeds to defend against appellants’ trespass action. Thus, Skelly Oil bars jurisdiction in federal court over the declaratory judgment action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment claim between private parties based solely on an assertion that federal law preempts state regulation.

CALSTAR v. State Compensation Ins. Fund · filed 2011-03-31

Actions against state officials are part of those that are “basic” and “necessary.” See Shaw, 463 U.S. at 96 n.14. Declaratory judgments against private parties, regardless of whether the Supremacy Clause has been invoked, are not. Skelly Oil, 339 U.S. at 671.

Section 1331 provides no jurisdiction over a claim for declaratory relief when dismissal of the substantive claims leaves no independent federal-question basis.

Truesdell v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group · filed 2002-06-20

The dismissal of Plaintiffs two substantive claims divests her complaint of any ground for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider her claim for declaratory relief.

Merely invoking the Declaratory Judgment Act does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Campbell v. American International Group Inc. · filed 2015-01-20

Accordingly, mere invocation of the Declaratory Judgment Act cannot confer “arising under” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment claim when the pleaded facts show that the defendant could bring a coercive federal action, even if the complaint omits the statute conferring jurisdiction.

Professional Led Lighting, Ltd. v. AAdyn Technology, LLC · filed 2015-02-18

Critically for our purposes, “where a complaint fails to cite the statute conferring jurisdiction, the omission will not defeat jurisdiction if the facts alleged in the complaint satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the statute.” ... Indeed, the entire third count of that complaint is devoted to PPI’s alleged copyrights and LED’s purported ownership interests therein, and requests a declaratory judgment that LED does not possess an interest in any PPI copyright, that LED cannot pursue a claim for copyright infringement against the AAdyn Parties, and that the AAdyn Parties have no liability to PPI for copyright infringement. This invokes the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under the Copyright Act of 1976 (the “Copyright Act”), 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over remaining claims for declaratory relief after the sole claims raising a federal question have been dismissed.

Browne v. Zaslow · filed 2015-05-05

Having dismissed the sole claims raising a question of federal law, we are thus without jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory relief.

The Declaratory Judgment Act cannot itself establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 because it creates a remedy rather than a cause of action.

Kraft v. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency · filed 2021-04-05

It is plain from the statutory text that the Declaratory Judgment Act creates a remedy, not a cause of action. Thus, it cannot serve as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction solely because a plaintiff requests a declaration that a state statute is unconstitutional.

Hunter v. Dave Billion, Auto · filed 2024-04-25

Hunter’s request that the court declare a Minnesota statute unconstitutional does not confer federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a Declaratory Judgment Act claim without an independent federal basis for jurisdiction.

JAMALADDIN v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC. · filed 2025-07-28

Thus, in the absence of any other live federal claims for legal relief that could provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction, cf. Rarick v. Federated Serv. Ins. Co., 852 F.3d 223, 227-30 (3d Cir. 2017), Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment claim shall be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over a declaratory preemption claim that would become meaningful only as a defense to a possible state court action.

Maine Central Railroad v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n · filed 1988-02-16

Since this action does not, as alleged, arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States, there is no basis for the assertion by this Court of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; invoking the Declaratory Judgment Act alone does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Smulley v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois · filed 2021-08-03

Therefore, the fact that the complaint cites and relies on the federal Declaratory Judgment Act does not suffice to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 can preserve jurisdiction over constitutional claims against a school district even when the district is dismissed as a defendant under Section 1983 because it is not a statutory person.

Panitch v. State of Wisconsin · filed 1974-11-26

We conclude that the joint school district’s motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint which purport to state a cause of action against it under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should be granted. It should be noted, however, that because jurisdiction is also alleged under 28 U. S.C. § 1331, the granting of such motion has no practical effect upon this litigation.

Section 1331 can support a constitutional claim against a municipal board even though the board is not a proper defendant under Section 1983.

Jenner v. Board of Trustees · filed 1974-12-20

The defendant village board has moved to dismiss on the grounds that it is not a proper party to an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because jurisdiction is also .alleged under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, however, the defendant village board’s motion to dismiss should be denied.

Section 1331 may supply jurisdiction over a constitutional claim against a school district regardless of whether the district is treated as a municipality or as a person under § 1983.

Roane v. Callisburg Independent School District · filed 1975-04-18

Regardless of whether a school district is treated as a municipality, see, e. g., Love v. City of Dallas, 120 Tex. 351, 40 S.W.2d 20 (1931), or a “person”, the record in this case indicates that the plaintiff Roane satisfied the jurisdictional requisites of § 1331.

Section 1331 gives jurisdiction over a direct Fourteenth Amendment damages action against a municipality, and § 1983's restrictions do not bar that remedy.

Williams v. Brown · filed 1975-06-16

Section 1331, on which plaintiff bases jurisdiction of her action against the City, does not make damages against the City unavailable. ... There is nothing in the language or legislative history of § 1331 to indicate that the restrictions of § 1983 should be imported into federal question jurisdiction. ... To recapitulate, plaintiff has a cause of action to redress the violation of her Fourteenth Amendment rights directly under that Amendment. This court has jurisdiction over that action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Damages from the City as the employer of the police officers are an available remedy and are not barred by any immunity of the City.

In a constitutional suit pleaded under Section 1331 and the civil-rights statutes, lack of personhood under Section 1983 defeated jurisdiction over a school board but not over the individual school superintendent.

Eloise Ingraham, as Next Friend, Etc. v. Willie J. Wright, I, Individually, Etc. · filed 1976-01-08

We, therefore, hold that jurisdiction was improperly granted against the Dade County School Board and, accordingly, that part of the complaint must be dismissed. Jurisdiction to proceed against Edward L. Whigham, Superintendent of Schools, was, however, properly granted.

Section 1331 permits a plaintiff to pursue equitable relief against a municipal school board for constitutional violations even if the board is not a person under Section 1983.

Lombard v. Board of Ed. of City of New York · filed 1976-01-23

From the foregoing it would seem that jurisdiction over the defendant Board of Education in this case may lie under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in that school boards may in this Circuit be considered “persons” within the meaning of that section; but even if it does not, jurisdiction would appear to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) under the ... rationale. ... Plaintiff will be permitted to amend his complaint within 20 days to state a claim for equitable relief against the Board of Education under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and, the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

A governmental subdivision’s exclusion from suit under Section 1983 because it is not a statutory “person” does not shield it from liability under Section 1331.

Panzarella v. Boyle · filed 1975-12-22

The Court is persuaded by the reasoning of this latter group of cases that the mere fact that a government subdivision is not subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it is not a “person” within the meaning of that statute does not shield it from liability under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supports a suit directly under the Constitution seeking injunctive relief against a municipality for alleged due-process and equal-protection violations.

Weyenberg v. Town of Menasha · filed 1975-12-30

The first two claims allege that the town has denied the plaintiff his due process and equal protection rights. Only injunctive relief is sought against the town. Under these circumstances, I conclude that this action is maintainable directly under the constitution, with jurisdiction predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) reaches claims brought directly under the Fourteenth Amendment and does not incorporate Section 1983's limitation on which defendants qualify as persons.

Patterson v. Ramsey · filed 1976-03-29(a)

A suit directly based on the Fourteenth Amendment would seem to be the paradigm of a case “arising under” the Constitution. Furthermore, the “person” requirement of section 1983 is absent from § 1331(a).

In constitutional-rights actions under Section 1331(a), the District of Columbia may be liable for its own acts and its employees' acts despite local common-law immunity for discretionary functions.

Shifrin v. Wilson · filed 1976-05-12(a)

Accordingly, the Court holds that in federal actions for deprivation of constitutional rights under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), the District of Columbia can be held liable for its own acts and for those of its employees, regardless of whether those acts would fall within the common law immunity for discretionary functions.

Section 1331 permits a damages action directly against a local governmental body for specific Fourteenth Amendment violations even though the body is not a person subject to suit under Section 1983.

Clark v. State of Ill. · filed 1976-05-19

We conclude, however, that the County may be sued for money damages for alleged specific violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and this Court has jurisdiction of such a suit. ... Finally, the Seventh Circuit has held that a body politic may be held liable for damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits a Fourteenth Amendment suit against a municipality even when the municipality is not subject to suit under Section 1983.

American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Chicago · filed 1976-05-26

This Court holds that defendant City of Chicago is not immune from suit under the Fourteenth Amendment and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A municipality may be a proper defendant in a constitutional suit brought under Section 1331(a) even though it is not a person subject to suit under Section 1983.

Olson v. Borough of Homestead · filed 1976-07-07(a)

The borough could be a proper party in a suit brought under § 1331(a).

Section 1331 supports a direct Fourteenth Amendment damages claim against a municipality even though the municipality is not a person amenable to suit under Section 1983.

Tucker v. Thompson · filed 1976-08-05

While many additional reasons could be given for this court’s conclusion, these authorities are more than adequate to support this court’s opinion that Mrs. Tucker’s ... claim that her husband’s death resulted from the deprivation of his Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights, states a cause of action against the City of Macon over which this court has general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits Fourteenth Amendment liability against a municipal commission and its commissioners in their official capacities even when Section 1983 does not permit monetary relief against them in those capacities.

Sartin v. City of Columbus Utilities Commission · filed 1976-09-27

Although damages, back pay or other monetary relief cannot be recovered under § 1983 from the Commission or the Commissioners, in their official capacity, this does not foreclose either § 1983 liability of the Commissioners as individuals, or § 1331 liability of the Commission and the Commissioners in their official capacities under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 1331(a) does not authorize courts to fashion direct Fourteenth Amendment monetary or injunctive remedies against a municipality when Congress excluded municipalities from Section 1983.

Farnsworth v. Orem City · filed 1976-10-07(a)

The controlling issue of law is whether this federal court can exercise federal question jurisdiction and award injunctive and monetary relief against a municipal corporation under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (1970) for alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. ... This court adopts the position that judicial restraint in fashioning constitutional remedies is appropriate in the present case in the absence of legislation. ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the municipal defendant’s motion to dismiss the claims for injunctive and monetary relief is granted.

Section 1331 can provide jurisdiction over damage and equitable claims against a school district and its officials.

Devore v. Edgefield County School District · filed 1975-06-30

The fact that the instant actions are directed against a school district and its officials is no bar to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... For these reasons, it is the judgment of this court that § 1331 confers subject matter jurisdiction over both the damage and equitable claims herein; it is therefore unnecessary for the court to consider the other alleged bases of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supports a direct Fourteenth Amendment claim for injunctive relief against a county even though the county is not suable under Section 1983, but it does not itself establish a damages cause of action.

Raffety v. Prince George's County · filed 1976-11-01

Although they pray compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $250,000, they also seek “such other and further relief as may be just and proper.” Therefore, the court may deem it “just and proper” to enjoin the County and its agents from further investigation of the plaintiffs. The court believes that a claim against the County for this relief has been stated directly under the Fourteenth Amendment and that this claim is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... For these reasons, the motion of Prince George’s County to dismiss the claim for compensatory damages against it based upon the Fourteenth Amendment under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 will be granted.

Section 1331(a) supplies independent jurisdiction for equitable Fourteenth Amendment relief against state or municipal agencies even though those entities are not persons suable under Section 1983.

Donohue v. Board of Elections of State of NY · filed 1976-12-07(a)

This is not a case where plaintiffs seek to premise jurisdiction on a pendent state claim. Clearly an independent basis of federal jurisdiction exists in 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

A public school board may be a proper defendant in a direct constitutional action under Section 1331 even though it is not a person under Section 1983.

Weissbaum v. Hannon · filed 1976-12-20

Initially, defendants argue that the Board is not a proper defendant in this litigation as it is not a person within the language of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and further, that the United States Supreme Court will hold that the Board is not a proper defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This argument is frivolous. The court cannot dismiss the Board when this circuit has held that it may be a proper defendant in an action such as this under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A state prisoner's constitutional right to medical care supports Section 1331(a) jurisdiction over a direct constitutional claim against a municipality when the claim arises under the Constitution.

Sanabria v. Village of Monticello · filed 1976-12-23(a)

In any event, it is beyond peradventure that the Constitution affords protection for a state prisoner’s right to medical care. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims herein do arise under the Constitution, and federal subject matter jurisdiction is properly invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 permits a colorable damages claim against a municipality for violations of federal constitutional rights even though the municipality is not a person subject to suit under Section 1983.

Drennon v. Philadelphia General Hospital · filed 1977-01-31(a)

I conclude that the latter interpretation of ... is appropriate and reject the position “that municipalities enjoy any special status which would immunize them from suits to redress deprivations of federal constitutional rights;” the plaintiff in this case states a colorable cause of action against the City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia General Hospital under § 1331.

Section 1331(a) permits municipalities to be sued directly for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Martha Wiley, Mother and Next of Kin of Fred Lee Berry, a Deceased Minor v. Memphis Police Department · filed 1977-02-10(a)

Likewise, the Court declined to find subject matter jurisdiction of plaintiff’s constitutional claims against the city, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). We note here that this ruling was erroneous. Municipalities may be sued directly for Fourteenth Amendment violations through 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over constitutional claims brought directly against a municipality even when the municipality is not a person subject to suit under Section 1983.

International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 2069 v. City of Sylacauga · filed 1977-03-31

Federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 2201. The complaint is brought under the first and fourteenth amendments and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Defendant City of Sylacauga, Alabama, is a municipal corporation and is not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, all § 1983 claims against this defendant must be dismissed. ... Those claims, however, brought against the City under the first and fourteenth amendments are for the consideration of the court.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a direct Fourteenth Amendment due-process action against a city even though the city is not a person under Section 1983.

Anderson v. City of Chicago · filed 1977-04-25

Of course, the City is not a person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. But plaintiff’s claim against it is a direct action under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, with jurisdiction here under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 may supply an alternative direct constitutional cause of action against a municipality that is not a person subject to suit under Section 1983.

Penthouse International, Ltd. v. Putka · filed 1977-08-23

Although, in accordance with the foregoing case authority, the claim against the City of Cleveland pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is subject to dismissal upon proper motion, the Court further recognizes an alternative cause of action approved by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) gives jurisdiction to hear a direct Fourteenth Amendment damages claim against a municipality.

Blake v. Town of Delaware City · filed 1977-11-14(a)

It is well settled that this Court presently has ... jurisdiction ... under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear Fourteenth Amendment claims for money damages against a municipality.

Section 1331 permits direct Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against a municipal corporation even when the plaintiffs did not specifically plead Section 1331.

Dawson v. Pastrick · filed 1977-11-15

With respect of plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, this Court has no difficulty in holding that the plaintiffs have stated a cause of action directly under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. While not specifically alleged by the plaintiffs, this Court has jurisdiction to hear the constitutional claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction for an implied Fourteenth Amendment cause of action against a municipality even though the municipality is not a person subject to suit under the Civil Rights Act.

Norton v. McKeon · filed 1977-12-28

Plaintiff has also alleged, however, that the City is liable for violation of his fourteenth amendment rights, with jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331. While there is a division of opinion within this district concerning jurisdiction against a municipality based upon an implied cause of action under the fourteenth amendment, I have held consistently that such a cause of action exists.

Section 1331 may provide jurisdiction over a constitutional claim against a school district even if the district is not a person under Section 1983.

Burnaman v. Bay City Independent School District · filed 1978-02-15

Since this court clearly has jurisdiction, however, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ... a detail exploration of the question of whether or not BCISD is a “person” would appear to be unnecessary.

When Section 1343(3) is unavailable against a municipality, a direct Fourteenth Amendment recovery claim may properly invoke Section 1331(a).

Snow v. Winston · filed 1978-03-21(a)

Since 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) is not available as a jurisdictional basis, this claim properly is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 permits equitable and monetary relief against a school board and its officials on a direct Fourteenth Amendment claim when the jurisdictional prerequisites are met.

Miller v. BOARD OF ED. OF CTY. OF LINCOLN · filed 1978-04-14

Plaintiffs have also alleged a cause of action directly under the Fourteenth Amendment through the federal question jurisdiction of this Court, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court, finding that the jurisdictional prerequisites of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 have been met, may award relief against the Board of Education, the Superintendent and the members of the Board under this theory.

Section 1331 permits subject-matter jurisdiction over a municipality accused of violating constitutional rights when the statute’s jurisdictional requirements are properly pleaded.

Kapsos v. City of Milwaukee · filed 1978-05-04

I have previously ruled that subject matter jurisdiction may be acquired over a municipality alleged to have deprived a tavern owner of due process in connection with the nonrenewal of a liquor license provided the jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 are met. ... The defendants have not responded to the plaintiffs’ allegations that the jurisdictional prerequisites for acquiring subject matter jurisdiction over the city and board pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 have been properly pleaded. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over these two defendants will be denied.

A municipality cannot be held vicariously liable in a direct constitutional action under § 1331 merely because it employs officials who allegedly violated constitutional rights.

Strickler v. Gazzana · filed 1978-05-09

While there is contrary authority, ... it is inappropriate to apply the doctrine of respondeat superior against a municipality in a direct constitutional action under § 1331 jurisdiction. ... Liability under § 1331 should not be imposed in the absence of a strong showing that the violation of constitutional rights occurred, for example, as a result of the application of a municipal ordinance, the adoption of a policy by high municipal officials, or perhaps the acquiescence by such officials in the acts of subordinates. ... The mere existence of an employment relationship is insufficient to justify municipal liability.

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction over a constitutional claim against a municipality because such a claim presents a federal question arising under the Constitution.

Blake v. Cich · filed 1978-07-18(a)

The Court found jurisdiction proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), for the claim against the city presented a federal question arising under the Constitution.

Section 1331 permits a direct constitutional cause of action against a municipality.

Jones v. City of Memphis, Tennessee · filed 1978-09-19

This Circuit has held consistently that a direct cause ’ of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for violation of constitutional rights is available against a municipality.

Section 1331 does not support a direct Fourteenth Amendment damages action against a municipality when Section 1983 provides the exclusive vehicle for that remedy.

Locust v. Degiovanni · filed 1980-03-13

Plaintiff’s attempt to assert a direct cause of action under the Constitution pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal question jurisdiction, as a ... action, ... is equally unavailing. ... We agree with their analysis, and conclude that it is clear that there is no direct Fourteenth Amendment action against municipalities.

The municipal-liability principle from Monell applies to Section 1331 jurisdiction as well as to Section 1983.

Abraham Shamie, Cross-Appellant v. City of Pontiac, Cross-Appellee · filed 1980-04-21

The same reasoning applies to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, since we have held that the ... principle extends to that statute as well.

Section 1331 generally supplies jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims, but it does not itself create an implied municipal damages action under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Weller v. Department of Social Services · filed 1990-04-19

We also note that federal jurisdiction generally exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for constitutional violations, but as discussed below, we uphold the dismissal of all claims against the state defendants because such suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. ... In addition, plaintiff cannot rely on federal jurisdiction under § 1331 for a due process claim against the City of Baltimore. There is no implied cause of action against a municipality for damages under the Fourteenth Amendment for the acts of its employees, and there is no alternative basis for any federal claim against BCDSS.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a city facing a constitutional claim against it.

Nacirema Operating Co. v. Lynn · filed 1978-06-05

In the case sub judice the district court, which correctly decided that the City was subject to its jurisdiction under § 1331, was faced with several state law claims against the City, as well as the constitutional claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to hear claims of constitutional violations by municipalities.

Glenn R. Mahone and Harvey L. Mahone v. David S. Waddle, Albert B. Ellway, Jr. And the City of Pittsburgh · filed 1977-08-24

The availability of section 1331 jurisdiction to entertain claims of constitutional violations by municipalities is a settled principle of law.