28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when federal claims appear on the face of the complaint.

Forloine v. Persily · filed 2024-03-27

These federal claims are presented “on the face” of her complaint. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The Court, therefore, has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court subject matter jurisdiction when the complaint pleads claims arising under federal law.

La Michoacana Plus Ice Cream Parlor Corp v. Windy City Paletas · filed 2024-03-31

Here, the complaint pleads four claims arising under federal law. ... Thus, the Southern District of California has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint expressly asserts constitutional and § 1983 claims.

Younger · filed 2025-12-10

After meticulous review, the Magistrate Judge concluded that this Court properly exercises subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff’s Complaint expressly asserts claims arising under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation (DE 68) in full.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint expressly brings federal claims under § 1983.

Cahill · filed 2026-02-06

In the Complaint, Cahill plainly brings four federal claims pursuant to Section 1983 for violations of her constitutional rights. ... Therefore, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and remand is unwarranted.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a complaint seeks relief under federal statutes, even if those claims may later be dismissed.

Bruce v. U.S. Bank National Association · filed 2026-03-20

These alleged claims seeking relief under federal statutes, even if later shown as subject to dismissal, are facially enough to provide the district court with subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a Fifth Amendment takings claim pleaded on the face of a complaint, regardless of whether the claim will succeed.

Baker v. City of McKinney, Texas · filed 2021-11-18

Thus, under the plain language of § 1331, a federal cause of action exists on the face of Baker’s Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

An action does not arise under federal law within Section 1331(a) when Congress expressly gives the plaintiff no rights under the federal statute invoked.

Barnhart v. Brinegar · filed 1973-08-06(a)

From this history, we believe one conclusion is irresistable — Congress intended section 102(a) to preclude judicial review of federal and state agency actions under the real property acquisition practices of section 301 of the Act. ... The intended result is accomplished in two ways. First, if one has no rights under section 301, then one cannot be adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action. This bars review of federal agency decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act. Secondly, if one has no rights under section 301, we conclude that an action against a state agency under section 301 does not “arise under” the Constitution or laws of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (1970).

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction merely because a pleading mentions a federal statute; the well-pleaded complaint must establish a federal claim or a right to relief that necessarily depends on a substantial federal question.

Sanderson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield · filed 1996-09-30

However, the mere fact that ERISA is mentioned in a pleading is insufficient to provide federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state civil conspiracy claim merely because a federal statute is one of several alternative unlawful acts alleged.

Young v. Matagorda County Hospital District · filed 1997-12-16

The Court agrees with Plaintiff, and holds that Plaintiffs allegation of a FCA violation as an element of her state civil conspiracy claim does not present a sufficiently compelling federal question which would fundamentally alter the state-law nature of her claim.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint asserts a federal cause of action or relief necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Tasini v. New York Times Co., Inc. · filed 2002-01-25

In delimiting “federal question” or “arising under” jurisdiction, Congress has conferred upon the lower federal courts “jurisdiction to hear, originally or by removal from a state court, only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint presents a federal cause of action or necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Spagnuolo v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey · filed 2002-10-22

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have jurisdiction to hear “only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; mentioning a federal statute only in a response does not establish jurisdiction.

Clark v. Meijer, Inc. · filed 2005-03-31

Moreover, even though the Clarks mentioned § 1983 in their response, the federal question must appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the face of a properly pleaded complaint alleges violations of federal statutes.

Hayes v. Bank of New York Mellon Ex Rel. CWABS Inc. · filed 2015-01-30

The district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the Hayes’s complaint. The complaint alleged violations of several federal statutes, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e), and Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1641.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint asserts neither a federal cause of action nor a right to relief requiring resolution of a federal-law question.

(UD)(PS) 2018-3 IH Borrower, LP v. Cervantes · filed 2019-08-06

Plaintiff’s complaint, however, provides no basis for federal question jurisdiction because it invokes no federal law creating a cause of action, nor does it assert a right to relief requiring resolution of a question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents no federal statutory or constitutional question.

Murguia v. Hernandez · filed 2019-10-28

Here, the state-court complaint discloses no federal statutory or constitutional question that would support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff’s complaint to assert a federal cause of action or a right to relief requiring resolution of a federal question.

(UD)(PS) U.S. Bank National Assoc. v. Chang · filed 2019-11-18

Plaintiff’s complaint, however, provides no basis for federal question jurisdiction because it invokes no federal law giving rise to a federal cause of action, nor does it assert a right to relief requiring resolution of a question of federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question apparent from the well-pleaded complaint, through a federal cause of action or a substantial federal issue necessary to relief.

Hatten v. State of Ohio · filed 2019-12-30

Jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331 requires the presence of a federal question, that is, where 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.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and, therefore, enjoys the benefit of a liberal construction of the Complaint. Boswell v. Mayer, 169 F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir. 1999). But even with the benefit of liberal construction, Plaintiff has not alleged a federal question and none is apparent on the face of the Complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim in the plaintiff’s initial pleading; federal statutory claims raised only in response do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Fairfield Cornerstone At Farmingdale LLC v. Pritchett · filed 2020-03-03

Assertions of federal statutory claims in response to the state court proceeding are insufficient to invoke the federal court’s jurisdiction where original jurisdiction is lacking.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint expressly alleges violations of federal law, even if it does not identify a specific federal statute.

GREMO v. BAYER CORPORATION · filed 2020-04-21

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants’ actions taken in concert with a federal agency violate federal law and federal regulations readily establishes that Plaintiff’s complaint arises under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal statute or constitutional right allegedly violated and states no claim under federal law.

Stephens v. Transunion · filed 2021-07-07

Plaintiff has not identified any federal statute or constitutional right allegedly violated by defendant’s conduct, and she has not stated a claim under federal law against defendants. The Court find no basis to exercise jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332, and this case should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; a complaint without facts supporting a federal cause of action does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

McAtee v. Audubon Country Club · filed 2021-08-26

In the present case, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires that “a federal question be presented on the face of the complaint.”

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint, supported by facts showing a federal cause of action.

McAtee v. Audubon Country Club · filed 2021-10-06

In the present case, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires that “a federal question be presented on the face of the complaint.” Mich. S. R.R. Co. v. Branch & St. Joseph Ctys., 287 F.3d 568, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff cites no facts to support a claim for the violation of his constitutional rights or any other federal cause of action. Therefore, the complaint fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in a properly pleaded complaint; references to federal statutes without identifiable claims and supporting facts do not adequately establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Williams v. Carrillo · filed 2021-12-10

As to federal question jurisdiction, although the complaint cites to various federal statutes, it is not clear, for the reasons given above, which, if any, of these references are intended to allege a claim against the named Defendants and what the factual bases of those claims may be.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify a federal claim and its factual basis; citations to federal statutes or constitutional amendments alone do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Williams v. Aetna Inc. · filed 2022-02-18

As to federal question jurisdiction, although the complaint cites to various federal statutes and constitutional amendments, it is not clear, for the reasons given above, which, if any, of these references are intended to allege a claim against the named Defendants and what the factual bases of those claims may be.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a federal claim appears on the face of the complaint, even if that claim fails on other grounds.

Reshard v. Stevenson · filed 2022-05-13

Although Reshard’s § 1983 claims fail for other reasons, see infra part ILE, the inclusion of a federal claim on the face of the Complaint provides an additional basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law to appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Martinson v. Farrar, II · filed 2022-05-16

Federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists when a claim arising under federal law is presented on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. ... No claim arising under federal law is alleged or discernible on the face of his complaint.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law to appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Warren v. Thompson · filed 2022-05-17

Federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists when a claim arising under federal law is presented on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. ... No claim arising under federal law is alleged on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim on the face of the complaint; checking a box for federal law does not establish jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no claim arising under federal law.

Willut v. Heuer · filed 2022-07-08

The court also does not have federal question jurisdiction. Although the plaintiff marked the box on his complaint indicating that he was suing for a violation of federal law, dkt. no. 1 at 5, the plaintiff has not alleged a claim arising under federal law. He has not identified any federal statute or constitutional provision that governs the dispute.

A federal claim appearing on the face of the complaint creates a federal question that supports original jurisdiction.

Hunter v. Page County, Iowa · filed 2024-05-17

The appearance of a federal due process claim on the face of plaintiffs’ complaint created a federal question, provided a basis for removal, and consequently provided a basis for supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ related state claims.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction when a complaint asserts a cause of action created by federal law.

DeCoe v. CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina · filed 2024-08-05

In sum, because DeCoe’s Complaint asserts a separate claim for denial of unpaid benefits under ERISA, thereby satisfying federal-question jurisdiction, Defendants properly removed his Complaint to this Court and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand will be denied.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when no federal issue appears on the face of the complaint.

Pradera SFR, LLC v. American Housing Ventures, LLC · filed 2025-02-24

No federal issue appears on the face of Pradera’s complaint that could support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal cause of action to appear on the face of the complaint to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Batson v. Farmers Group, Inc. · filed 2025-05-07

Therefore, the complaint must show on its face that the cause of action is created by federal law.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a First Amendment claim even when the complaint does not expressly cite § 1983.

Crosier · filed 2025-12-11

Plaintiff need not expressly invoke 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a legal malpractice claim that raises no federal question.

Tidwell v. Bembry · filed 2005-05-25

The District Court correctly concluded that subject matter jurisdiction could not be premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Tidwell’s claims of legal malpractice did not give rise to a federal question.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction when a civil rights complaint adequately alleges a violation of federal constitutional rights.

Davis v. Western Psychiatric Institute & Clinic · filed 2005-08-17

Jurisdiction would exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal question statute, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), the jurisdictional counterpart to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Davis’ complaint did not, however, adequately allege a denial of due process in the steps leading to his apparent commitment to WPIC, and we reach this conclusion even in view of our obligation to construe pro se complaints liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a FOIA claim seeking records from a state agency, because FOIA does not cover state agencies.

Blankenship v. Claus · filed 2005-09-07

The district court also lacked federal question jurisdiction because Blankenship’s FOIA claim does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over SDWA enforcement actions because the SDWA’s state-request requirement does not withdraw federal-question jurisdiction.

United States v. Alisal Water Corporation · filed 2005-10-12

Therefore, under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1345, the inquiry here rests on whether the SDWA contains any special limits or exceptions to the district court’s general statutory subject matter jurisdiction. ... Because the SDWA includes no special provision limiting jurisdiction over federal question claims or suits brought by the United States, we conclude that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this suit and that federal jurisdiction to permit EPA enforcement under the SDWA statutory scheme is concurrent with that of state regulators.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over federal drinking water enforcement suits unless Congress limits that jurisdiction.

United States v. Alisal Water Corporation · filed 2005-12-14

Therefore, under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1345, the inquiry here rests on whether the SDWA contains any special limits or exceptions to the district court's general statutory subject matter jurisdiction. ... Because the SDWA includes no special provision limiting jurisdiction over federal question claims or suits brought by the United States, we conclude that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this suit and that federal jurisdiction to permit EPA enforcement under the SDWA statutory scheme is concurrent with that of state regulators.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over substantial claims requiring interpretation of federal law, even when a state commission must consider the dispute first.

Core Communications, Inc. v. Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. · filed 2006-03-21

The dispute in this case revolves around the duties imposed by the TCA, specifically §§ 251 and 252. Consequently, it involves federal law, and its interpretation and application to the facts of this case. Here, Core prevails if the statute is given one construction, or loses, if given another. Unquestionably, determining whether Verizon breached any of its statutory duties requires an interpretation of those duties. No one suggests that Core’s claims are immaterial or frivolous. Therefore, unless supplanted by another statute, there is § 1331 jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over IDEA claims, and timely filing is not a condition of that jurisdiction.

K., Farzana v. IN Dept Educ · filed 2007-01-04

Yet whether federal jurisdiction exists is a matter of federal law, and there is no doubt about the source of the district court’s power: 28 U.S.C. §1331, which authorizes federal courts to entertain claims arising under federal law, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Timely filing may be a condition to success, but it is not a jurisdictional requirement in federal court.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a Rule 22 interpleader when an ERISA fiduciary’s well-pleaded complaint asserts a substantial federal cause of action.

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Price · filed 2007-09-04

Federal question jurisdiction exists when the plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint establishes that “federal law creates the cause of action.” ... MetLife’s well-pleaded complaint establishes that its cause of action arises under ERISA.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a federal statutory claim even when the claim fails for lack of a substantive right.

Francis v. Mineta · filed 2007-10-10

We disagree with the District Court’s finding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction. It had federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction when an amended complaint raises an ERISA claim, curing an initial jurisdictional defect in removal.

Fernandez-Vargas v. Pfizer · filed 2008-04-03

When Fernández amended her complaint, the district court undoubtedly possessed original federal question jurisdiction over her ERISA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over her wrongful death claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when the availability of relief depends on interpreting a federal statute, even if the existence of a cause of action remains unresolved.

Western Radio Services Co. v. Qwest Corporation · filed 2008-07-09

Because the availability of relief turns on interpretation of a federal statute, we clearly have general federal question juris- diction under § 1331.

Section 1331 permits a district court to hear a former service member’s constitutional collateral attack on a court-martial conviction even when the person is no longer in custody.

Sanford v. United States · filed 2008-07-22

Rather, a district court may have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a plaintiffs constitutional collateral attack pursuant to the court’s section 1331 federal question jurisdiction. ... For the above reasons, to the extent that defendant moves for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, that motion is denied, and this Court will proceed under the limited scope of review wherein it will address plaintiffs claims in a two-step analysis: (1) determination of whether the military courts gave plaintiffs constitutional claim thorough consideration, and (2) determination of whether the military courts’ judgment was in contravention of Supreme Court standards unless conditions peculiar to military life require a different rule.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; whether an FLSA exemption defeats such a claim goes to its merits.

Saca v. DAV-EL RESERVATION SYSTEMS, INC. · filed 2009-03-04

That the amended complaint asserts claims “arising under” federal law—the FLSA— is sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Accordingly, Dav-El’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) is DENIED.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; a complaint alleging no violation of the Constitution or federal law does not meet that requirement.

Miller v. Hawaii Self Storage · filed 2009-06-29

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... The complaint does not allege a violation of either the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over Torture Victim Protection Act claims even when Alien Tort Statute jurisdiction is lacking.

Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Company · filed 2009-08-11

We conclude the district court erred in dismissing the TVPA claims for want of subject matter jurisdiction because jurisdiction over the TVPA claims is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in this case.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction when the face of the complaint shows a cause of action created by federal law.

City of Newark v. Lawson · filed 2009-09-24

For purposes of federal question jurisdiction, a claim arises under federal law if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the cause of action was created by federal law.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for a district court to exercise federal-question jurisdiction.

Taylor v. Dc Housing Authority · filed 2009-11-19

Because the complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship, it will be dismissed.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over a federal statutory claim against a federal agency even when a separate statute waives sovereign immunity.

Talley v. United States Department of Agriculture · filed 2010-02-12

The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 1681p, while we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. ... Talley appealed to § 1331 and § 1681p; he did not invoke the Tucker Act as a grant of subject-matter jurisdiction. ... But if the plaintiff elects to use the latter without the former, then jurisdiction does not arise under the Tucker Act. This court therefore has appellate jurisdiction.

Section 1331 can supply subject-matter jurisdiction over a federal-question claim against a federal agency even when the Tucker Act supplies the waiver of sovereign immunity.

Talley v. AGRI · filed 2010-02-12

But if, as we held in Cook County and its successors, statutes such as 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 15 U.S.C. §1681p supply subject-matter jurisdiction whether the defendant is private or public, then subject-matter jurisdiction need not rest on the Tucker Act even in part.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law when that basis is clear from the complaint, even if the complaint does not expressly identify it.

J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Rose's Dream, Inc. · filed 2010-06-25

Plaintiff’s causes of action arise under a federal statute and therefore fall within the grant of jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the so-called “federal question” jurisdiction statute.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over an alleged ERISA cause of action; whether ERISA covers the claimed plan is a merits question.

Daniels-Hall v. National Education Ass'n · filed 2010-12-20

Because Plaintiffs alleged a cause of action arising under ERISA, it is clear that the dis- trict court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over disputes about interconnection agreements that impose duties under federal law.

Central Telephone Co. v. Sprint Communications Co. of Virginia, Inc. · filed 2011-01-04

For this Court, the controlling legacy of Verizon Md. II is clear: federal district courts have jurisdiction under § 1331 to decide contract disputes respecting the interpretation of ICAs.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges federal claims, even if the plaintiff identifies diversity jurisdiction on the civil cover sheet.

Blackmon v. U.S.D. 259 School District · filed 2011-02-15

Defendants’ argument is without merit because the Court finds it clear that Plaintiff alleges federal claims which give rise to its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over a complaint alleging a violation of a congressionally authorized interstate compact because the compact has the force of federal law.

M.F., B.C. v. N.Y. Exec. Dep't Div. of Parole · filed 2011-04-11

Thus, there can be no question that this case arises under the laws of the United States. See U.S. Const. art. III; 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see also Verlinden B.V. v. Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 493 (1983) (a suit that “necessarily raises questions of substantive federal law at the very outset . . . clearly ‘arises under’ federal law, as that term is used in Article III”).

Section 1331 provides original jurisdiction when federal questions appear on the face of the complaint.

Tonea v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2014-03-18

Therefore, questions of federal law are present on the face of Plaintiffs complaint, which satisfies the requirements of §§ 1331, 1441 and provides the Court with original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a federal claim on its face, even if that claim later fails on the merits.

Kneitel v. Camilo · filed 2023-03-09

The Complaint on its face alleges a violation of federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and correctly cites as a basis for jurisdiction, 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.”).

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts a federal statutory claim, even if that claim is not central to the case.

Nwamaka C. Oh v. Navient Solutions, LLC · filed 2025-05-01

Further, regardless of whether Plaintiff's TILA claim is at the “core” of this case, Plaintiff does not dispute that the Complaint asserts a claim under TILA, a federal statute. Because the Complaint appears to assert a federal claim for relief, and Plaintiff does not argue otherwise, the Court appears to have federal question jurisdiction over the action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over quiet-title and declaratory-judgment claims merely because they broadly refer to federal land patents, the Supremacy Clause, and the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Bey · filed 2026-01-26

But these claims, nor their broad references to federal statutes and the Constitution, do not invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.

A complaint's bare recital of Section 1331 is insufficient when it does not identify any federal question presented by the claim.

Afa Distributing Co., Inc. v. Pearl Brewing Company · filed 1973-01-03

The complaint recites that there is jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 but is silent as to what, if any, federal question is presented. That is not enough.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; references to federal administrative claims made to show exhaustion do not by themselves establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Maheshwari v. University of Texas-Pan American · filed 2006-10-10

Therefore, Plaintiffs references to Title VII and the ADA in the “Conditions Precedent” section appear to relate to Plaintiffs “anticipation of the avoidance of defenses” and are not allegations that affirmatively state a claim under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; vague references to due process rights do not establish federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal claim.

Fields v. District of Columbia · filed 2016-01-12

The court concludes that it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over this case under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; a conclusory allegation of federal banking law does not establish jurisdiction.

Leach v. Wehling · filed 2019-04-05

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation is not sufficient to show that a federal question properly plead. Instead, the only federal “banking” statute cited is 18 U.S.C. § 1344, the criminal statute for bank fraud.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; frivolous references to federal law do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Hope-EL v. Gonzalez · filed 2019-12-05

Here, Plaintiff asserts federal question jurisdiction (Dkt. 1 at 91 [Civil Cover Sheet]), but no federal question is presented on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a state traffic citation does not meet that requirement.

(PS) Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin v. El Bey · filed 2020-01-31

The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction “is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” ... Accordingly, under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the claim against him arises solely under state law and does not present a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; a passing reference to federal law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Byrd v. The Third and Oak Corporation · filed 2020-12-16

Although paragraph 11 of the Complaint states that “[Byrd] voiced her concern that Defendants’ employees were improperly providing and billing for Medicare Part B physical therapy, a violation of federal law,” this does not establish federal question jurisdiction. The statement is nothing more than a passing reference to the False Claims Act and does not operate as the assertion of a federal claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint merely references the ADA without clearly pleading a federal claim.

Doutherd v. United Parcel Service Freight · filed 2021-11-02

This single reference is insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction on this court.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is not established by checking the federal-question box while citing only a state law.

McDonald · filed 2025-10-17

Here, Plaintiff checks the box for federal question jurisdiction, but then cites California’s Unruh Act, California Civil Code Section 51, which is a state law, not a federal law.

A conclusory assertion of federal question jurisdiction is insufficient when the complaint identifies no constitutional, federal law, or treaty basis for the claim.

Iriarte · filed 2025-10-16

Plaintiff makes the conclusory claim that the court can act under federal question jurisdiction but does not mention which of his rights under the Constitution, federal law, or treaty has been violated.

To establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331, a plaintiff must identify the federal law supporting the claim; labeling it “disparate treatment” is insufficient.

HEAD · filed 2025-10-22

When the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, it, like the Postmaster General, noticed that she didn’t indicate any federal statute that would give the Court subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1343. ... Since Plaintiff failed to delineate under which federal statute, or statutes, she brought her claim—under, for example, Title VII, the ADEA, or the ADA—she failed to affirmatively establish federal jurisdiction as she is required to do.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal issue appears only as a defense to state-law claims.

Texoma Woodworks, LLC v. De Jesus · filed 2026-02-06

When, as here, the alleged “federal issue” is raised as a defense, it does not appear on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint and Grable does not apply.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the federal issue appears only in the defendant’s defense or counterclaim.

Santander Consumer USA Incorporated v. Spencer · filed 2025-02-12

To the extent that Defendant attempts to present a federal question via a defense or counterclaim, this does not imbue this Court with subject-matter jurisdiction.

For § 1331 jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s complaint alone must show that the plaintiff asserts a claim or right arising under federal law, without relying on answers or defenses.

Castle & Cooke Terminals, Ltd. v. Local 137 of International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union · filed 1953-02-20

Where the basis is a claim or right arising under federal law, it must appear, obviously, that the plaintiff is asserting this sort of a right. The complaint is the sole source of information, to be taken unaided by answers or defenses, as to whether federal law is in fact the basis of the complaint.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff’s own pleaded claim to present a federal question; a defendant’s interpretation or anticipated federal defense cannot create federal-question jurisdiction.

Associated Tel. Co. v. Communication Workers · filed 1953-07-21

Plaintiff has elected to pursue a remedy available under state law. We conclude from the authorities above that no federal question is presented by plaintiffs’ pleadings and that defendants have improperly removed the case from the state court.

Section 1331 requires federal law to supply the basis of the plaintiff’s own claim; a federal issue appearing only in anticipation of a defense does not create jurisdiction.

Suggs v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen · filed 1960-02-17

In order for this court to have jurisdiction of this action, it must be an action “arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce” (28 U.S.C. § 1337) or one which “arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This court is of the opinion that this action does not so arise. ... Many cases involve federal questions, however, without having federal law as the basis of the suit. ... Such anticipation and forewarning that plaintiff would attack such defense on constitutional grounds does not aid in conferring jurisdiction.

For nondiverse removal, § 1331’s arising-under requirement must be satisfied by the plaintiff’s claim; even a certain federal defense cannot create district-court jurisdiction.

Thomas M. Debevoise, Attorney General of the State of Vermont, and State of Vermont v. Rutland Railway Corporation · filed 1961-06-08

Under the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), where there is no diversity, a defendant’s power to remove turns upon whether the plaintiff’s claim arises under federal law within the meaning of § 1331. ... But the claims could be asserted only as a defense to Vermont’s petition for the receivership and thus their existence does not meet the requirement of § 1441 that the plaintiff’s claim be one “arising under” federal law. It is well settled that the likelihood — even the certainty — that federal law will enter a case by way of defense does not confer jurisdiction upon the district courts.

Section 1331 requires the federal question to appear from the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint, and a federal defense such as judicial immunity cannot create arising-under jurisdiction over a state-law libel action.

Martin v. Wyzanski · filed 1967-01-16

Accordingly, the district court must look to the way the complaint is drawn to see if it is drawn so as to claim a right to recover under the Constitution or laws of the United States. … For the purpose of determining jurisdiction, recourse cannot be had to possible defenses available to defendant; rather the existence of the federal question must appear from plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. … It is apparent from a reading of the complaint that plaintiff’s right to recover does not turn upon any construction of federal law. … The motion to dismiss will accordingly be sustained for lack of jurisdiction.

A claim does not arise under the Constitution for Section 1331 purposes when the federal issue appears only as a defense or in anticipation of a defense rather than as an integral part of the plaintiff's claim.

Lang v. Colonial Pipeline Company · filed 1967-04-05

It is well settled that an action does not arise under the Constitution within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 if the federal question enters the picture only by way of a defense or in anticipation of a defense that the plaintiff expects the defendant to make. It must be an integral part of the statement of the plaintiff’s claim for relief in order for this court to have jurisdiction.

Federal-question removal requires a real, substantial federal issue that is an essential part of the plaintiff's claim; a possible Fourteenth Amendment defense in a state condemnation action is insufficient.

Urban Renewal Authority v. Daugherty · filed 1967-08-10

The state eminent domain power does not in and of itself give federal character to the case since it does not relate to the Constitution of the United States. Like any case it may prove to have a federal question but the presence of a potential federal question is not enough. The federal issue must be real, substantial, meritorious and not frivolous. It must also be as previously noted a part of the plaintiff’s case. … It is noted that in the cases at bar the question raised by the defendants is not a substantial federal question. In neither instance is an interpretation of the federal constitution essential to a determination of the rights sought by the petitions in condemnation. The reference in the responsive pleadings to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States poses a possible question only.

For removal based on § 1331, the federal ground must appear in the plaintiff's complaint rather than in a defense or the defendant's removal petition.

Robertson Motor Freight, Inc. v. Brady Motorfrate, Inc. · filed 1968-08-13

The claims which confer such jurisdiction must be found in the plaintiff’s complaint and not in defendant’s answer or petition for removal.

Section 1331's well-pleaded-complaint rule requires federal jurisdiction to appear affirmatively on the complaint's face without relying on an answer or anticipating a federal defense.

Klim v. Jones · filed 1970-07-17

Section 1331 illustrates the necessity for complying with the long-established federal rule of the “well-pleaded complaint”: in order for an action to arise under federal law within the meaning of Section 1331, the plaintiff must show affirmatively on the face of the complaint that jurisdiction exists, without the aid of the answer or in anticipation of a federal question to be raised by way of defense, no matter how certain the latter may be.

Under § 1331's well-pleaded-complaint rule, original or removal jurisdiction exists only when the complaint's face shows that resolution depends on a federal question; a federal defense is insufficient.

Brough v. United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, and Third Party v. Carpenter & Paterson, Inc., Third Party · filed 1971-01-29

For a suit to be one that arises under the laws of the United States, so as to confer original or removal jurisdiction on the federal courts, it must appear on the face of the complaint that resolution of the case depends upon a federal question.

Section 1331 jurisdiction cannot rest on a federal defense to a state proceeding; the state complaint itself must raise the federal question.

Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission · filed 1970-11-10(a)

In suits in the federal courts arising out of proceedings pending or threatened in state tribunals, the federal court’s jurisdiction may not be predicated upon federal question defenses to the state proceedings. ... It is only if the state ... complaint ... raises federal questions that the federal court’s jurisdiction may be based on federal question grounds.

A federal defense to a state-law claim does not confer original Section 1331 jurisdiction because the federal question must appear in the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint.

Stephen S. Chandler, United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma v. William H. Pat O'Bryan · filed 1971-09-09(a)

It is true that the immunity issue is a federal question, Howard v. Lyons, 360 U.S. 593, 597, 79 S.Ct. 1331, 3 L.Ed.2d 1454 (1959), but it is in the nature of a federal defense to a suit instituted under state law. As such, it is not sufficient to convey ... original ... jurisdiction on a federal court.

Section 1331(a) does not supply jurisdiction when private conduct causes the alleged injury and a federal statute merely provides a potential defense.

Bay Guardian Co. v. Chronicle Publishing Company · filed 1972-02-24(a)

The Court finds therefore that no “federal question” is presented in the first cause of action within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331(a) does not support removal when federal issues enter a state-law complaint only through defenses or through matters raised in the answer or removal petition.

The State of Washington, Etc. v. The American League of Professional Baseball Clubs · filed 1972-04-07(a)

Federal preemption is a matter of defense to a state law claim, and not a ground for removal. ... One searches the complaint in vain for even a mention of such an order, much less an attack upon it. The matter was brought into the case by appellees in their answer and in their petition for removal. ... As is pointed out above, the Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that matters raised in this manner do not constitute federal questions for purposes of removal.

A federal defense does not create Section 1331 jurisdiction; the federal question must appear in the plaintiff's complaint.

State Ex Rel. Bruce v. Larkin · filed 1972-07-26

Section 1331 requires that the matter in controversy “arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Here, the plaintiff seeks to prosecute an action and effect a result in accordance with state statutes. The matter does not “arise” under the laws of the nation but under those of the state. The defendant offers a defense based on federal rulings in his petition ; however, “it is the plaintiff’s complaint, unaided by the petition for removal, which must disclose the presence of such federal question.” Spring City Flying Service, Inc. v. Vogel, 281 F.Supp. 594 (E.D.Wis.1968).

A defendant's anticipated federal defense cannot create Section 1331 jurisdiction; the federal question must appear in the plaintiff's own claim.

Warner Bros. Records, Inc. v. R. A. Ridges Distributing Co., Inc., a Corporation · filed 1973-03-06

It is fundamental that the action is not one arising under federal law where the federal question is supplied by way of defense.

Section 1331 requires the federal question to arise from the plaintiff's own pleaded claim, not from a defense or an anticipated federal response.

Board of Ed. of Atlanta v. AMERICAN FED. OF S., C. & ME · filed 1975-10-24

Stated simply, a federal district court’s original federal question jurisdiction must be posited upon the plaintiff’s pleading of his own case, and not by defendant’s response or even plaintiff’s anticipation of a federal element in that response.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists only when the plaintiff’s own cause of action arises under federal law, not when a federal issue appears only in an anticipated defense.

Lorraine Yancoskie, Administratrix of the Estate of Francis J. Yancoskie v. Delaware River Port Authority · filed 1975-12-24

This question of arguably federal law is not properly part of the plaintiff’s statement of her own cause of action. Rather, it is an answer to an anticipated defense. ... Therefore, the “sue and be ... sued” clause did not make § 1331 or § 1337 applicable to this case.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is proper only when the plaintiff’s own claim necessarily requires interpreting or applying federal law, not when federal law merely answers an expected defense.

The State of New York v. White · filed 1975-12-29

It is the nature of the plaintiff’s claim for relief which provides substance to the otherwise amorphous standard of “arising under” jurisdiction set forth in § 1331. Federal question jurisdiction may be properly invoked only if the plaintiff’s complaint necessarily draws into question the interpretation or application of federal law.

Section 1331 removal jurisdiction requires an essential federal right or immunity on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; an anticipated federal defense or general federal interest in a state-created claim is insufficient.

Pacific Far East Line, Inc. v. Ogden Corp. · filed 1977-01-17

Federal question jurisdiction does not lie simply because a defense based on federal law is anticipated. Similarly, a general governmental interest in the subject matter of a dispute will not itself suffice to transform an action based on state-created rights into a federal case. ... These are issues which may be raised defensively in a state court proceeding. They are not matters of “federal common law,” and, as defenses, they do not convert the action into one “arising under” federal law.

Section 1331 jurisdiction depends on the claim as actually pleaded; a possible unpleaded federal claim and a federal defense to a state claim do not create jurisdiction.

Wong v. Bacon · filed 1977-12-27

Even if ERISA might create a substantive law of restitution, ... that claim does not appear from the face of the complaint and in fact directly contradicts its theory. That plaintiffs could have pleaded in the alternative a state and a federal claim for restitution is not enough because the presence of a federal question in a claim for relief depends not on how the claim might have been formulated but on how it is in fact formulated. ... Plaintiffs are simply attempting to litigate in federal court a federal defense to a state cause of action, and that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not permit them to do.

For Section 1331 federal-question removal, subject-matter jurisdiction is determined from the plaintiff's complaint rather than a defense, later evidence, or involuntary developments in the case.

Self v. General Motors Corp. · filed 1978-03-30

applies to the diversity requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 in the same fashion that ... applies to the federal question requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Thus, the determination of whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists depends only upon plaintiff’s complaint and the context in which it is found.

For Section 1331(a) removal jurisdiction, the federal question must appear in the plaintiff's own petition rather than in anticipated defenses or the defendant's removal petition.

Dozier v. Weaver · filed 1979-11-28(a)

In determining whether the action “arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties” for removal jurisdiction purposes, it is clear that the Court must look to plaintiff’s petition itself, not potential defenses which might be anticipated and not the defendant’s petition for removal.

Under Section 1331's well-pleaded-complaint rule, a federal defense cannot convert a state-law cause of action into one arising under federal law.

Goluban v. Riverview Community School District · filed 1988-02-17

To determine whether a civil action “arises under” federal law for purposes of § 1331, courts look to “what necessarily appears in the plaintiffs statement of his own claim in the plaintiffs bill or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose.” ... Accepting for the moment defendant’s proposition that federal law prohibits the disclosure of the requested information, a defense based upon federal law does not transform an otherwise state-created cause of action into a case “arising under” federal law.

Section 1331 does not support removal merely because state claims could have been pleaded under federal environmental laws, may face federal defenses, or may be preempted absent unmistakable congressional intent to make them removable.

Boone v. DuBose · filed 1988-08-11

The court does not have subject matter jurisdiction simply because the plaintiffs could have asserted claims under various federal laws. Nor does the court obtain subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs state law claims may be defeated by a defense raised under federal law or the possible preemptive effect of federal law.

A state-law trust-construction action does not arise under Section 1331 merely because it may have federal tax consequences, names a federal official, or may encounter a federal immunity defense.

Wieland v. Savetz · filed 1990-04-03

Inasmuch as the plaintiffs and some of the defendants are citizens of Missouri, the only possible basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction in this action is the presence of a federal question. ... 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Although this determination may have resulting tax implications, plaintiffs do not seek a determination of federal tax liability nor is such a determination necessary to the resolution of their state law cause of action. The mere fact that the Commissioner, a federal official, has been named as a defendant herein does not provide a basis for the exercise of federal question jurisdiction. ... Moreover, the possible existence of federal immunity defense “does not convert a suit otherwise arising under state law into one which in the statutory sense, arises under federal law.”

Section 1331 ordinarily requires a federal issue on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; a federal preemption defense does not create federal question jurisdiction.

Yorn v. Union Oil Company of California Timothy J. Tomasso D.R. Masterson · filed 1992-01-07

Normally, of course, federal question jurisdiction does not obtain unless a plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint presents issues of federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal preemption defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Wonycott v. Southern Business MacHines · filed 1992-02-18

It is well established that in order for the federal courts to have jurisdiction the case must "arise under" federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... Federal jurisdiction is determined solely from the face of plaintiff's complaint. ... The pre-emptive defense used by defendant is insufficient to present a federal jurisdiction question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff's own claim; a possible federal constitutional defense to a state-law claim does not create federal jurisdiction.

State of Tennessee, Ex Rel. Richard D. Crotteau v. Chattanooga Women's Clinic · filed 1992-05-18

The only possible grounds for jurisdiction would be federal question jurisdiction, which establishes that "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, of treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, the plaintiff's complaint makes no reference to any federal statute or cause of action. ... While plaintiffs want the statutes declared constitutional, the fact that a possible defense for nonenforcement of the statutes could be made on federal constitutional grounds fails to meet the requirements of the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a removed claim must be grounded in the plaintiff's well-pleaded petition; a federal defense raised by the defendant does not confer jurisdiction.

Aquafaith Shipping, Ltd. v. Jarillas · filed 1992-06-19

The removal statute requires that the separate and independent claim be within our federal question jurisdiction. ... Still, the court draws this conclusion from a close reading of the plaintiff's pleadings, not from defenses raised by the defendant. "A defense that raises a federal question is inadequate to confer federal jurisdiction." ... We hold that Mrs. Jarillas's release claim is not subject to federal question jurisdiction and that her case should have been remanded to state court.

Section 1331 requires the federal question to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; a federal pre-emption defense alone does not make a claim arise under federal law.

Hurt v. Dow Chemical Company Rose Exterminator Company · filed 1992-07-02

Defendants rely first on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, granting jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under” federal law. The defendants argue that the federal defense of pre-emption of plaintiff’s claims by FIFRA causes the case to “arise under” federal law. We note, as do the parties, that there is a longstanding limitation on this jurisdictional ground called the well-pleaded complaint rule. Under this doctrine, an action “arises under” federal law only if the federal question appears on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question essential to the plaintiff’s claim and apparent on the complaint’s face; a federal defense cannot create federal-question jurisdiction.

Su-Ra Enterprises, Inc. v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A. · filed 1992-07-08

Under § 1331, Barnett must prove four distinct “preconditions”: (1) Federal law must be an “essential” element of the plaintiff’s cause of action; (2) The federal question must be disclosed only on the face of the complaint, and not in the answer or by the petition for removal; (3) The federal question cannot be inferred from a defense asserted by the defendant; and (4) The federal question must be “substantial.” ... Barnett, however, cannot create removal jurisdiction by asserting a federal statute as an affirmative defense.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law complaint refers to federal law only to negate its applicability or anticipate a preemption defense.

Hunter v. Greenwood Trust Co. · filed 1992-11-24

Plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint does not state a claim that “arises under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. Rather, the complaint relies on New Jersey state law and merely refers to federal law for the purpose of negating the applicability of federal law; these references are insufficient as a basis for removal under federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; an ordinary federal preemption defense does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

Rodriguez v. Shell Oil Co. · filed 1993-04-20

If a federal question does not appear on the face of the complaint, a district court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction. An allegation that the plaintiffs state-law claim is preempted by federal law is a federal defense and does not create a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction based on a federal preemption defense that does not appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc. v. Timke · filed 1993-09-13

Pursuant to the well-pleaded complaint rule, however, the Court may not consider Blue Cross’ preemption defense as a source of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when an ERISA preemption defense is the only asserted federal basis for removing state-law claims.

Robco of America, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America · filed 1994-03-09

INA counters that Robco’s complaint “relates to” an employee benefit plan and therefore raises federal-question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We summarily reject INA’s argument because it merely raises preemption as a federal defense, which cannot be the basis for removal.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a federal defense to state law claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Banner v. Burger · filed 1994-03-23

The "well-pleaded complaint" rule requires that a federal question appear on the face of the complaint in order for federal-question jurisdiction to exist. ... The validity of the IRS's tax sale, i.e., whether the IRS had complied with the procedural requirements of the applicable federal statutes, became a question only when the Burgers raised it as a defense. Federal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on a possible federal defense to state law claims.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the defendant expects to raise an ERISA preemption defense; absent an applicable exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule, removal jurisdiction is lacking.

Jorgensen v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America · filed 1994-04-29

Although at the time of removal defendant expected to raise the defense of preemption, the existence of a federal law defense usually does not provide a basis for removal. ... Since the well-pleaded complaint rule is controlling, removal jurisdiction is lacking.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over a state-law enforcement action merely because the defendant raises an ERISA preemption defense.

Employers Resource Management Co. v. Shannon · filed 1994-11-22

Case II, as initiated by the Commonwealth, does not “arise under” federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which outlines the parameters of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that raises only state-law claims merely because the defendant may assert a federal preemption defense.

Merkel v. Federal Express Corp. · filed 1995-05-01

The plaintiffs complaint does not on its face reveal a federal question, and the mere fact that the defendant may assert federal law as a defense to the plaintiffs claims does not sufficiently create jurisdiction in this court. The application of the well-pleaded complaint doctrine does not establish this court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim only when a federal question appears on the face of the complaint or federal law completely preempts the claim; an ordinary ERISA preemption defense is insufficient.

Dukes v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc. · filed 1995-06-19

State law claims which fall outside of the scope of § 502, even if preempted by § 514(a), are still governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule and, therefore, are not removable under the complete-preemption principles established in Metropolitan Life.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim or an essential federal element to appear on the face of the plaintiff's complaint; a federal defense alone does not confer jurisdiction.

Bullitt County Fiscal Court v. Gobel Newsome, D/B/A Gobel's Exotic Entertainment Judy Newsome · filed 1995-06-21

Section 1331 of Title 28 for the United States Code provides that the "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." A case "arises under" federal law if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff's cause of action is a creature of federal law, or that a federal law is an essential component of the plaintiff's state law claim. Thus, when a case is removed from state court, the district court must look to the plaintiff's complaint; the presence of a defense based on federal law is not sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law complaint mentions federal law only to anticipate a defense.

Gannett River States Publishing Corp. v. Mississippi State University · filed 1996-02-29

The only mention of federal law in the complaint was in anticipation of a defense defendants used when plaintiffs originally requested unredacted records and before the initial complaint was filed. Thus, the complaint does not arise out of federal law, this court does not have original jurisdiction, and removal is, therefore, improper.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because defenses or later issues may involve federal law.

Wortham v. K. Khan, Inc. · filed 1996-08-14

Applying the law as previously set out as to the facts of these cases, it would appear that as long as plaintiffs are only asserting State of Missouri law violations in the contractual dispute among the parties that it is entitled to choose the State of Missouri as its forum. The fact that defenses or certain issues might ultimately involve federal law does not entitle this corut to assume jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a federal issue arises only as a defense to a state-law claim, even if that issue is central to the dispute.

Farmers Co-Operative Elevator, Woden, Iowa v. Doden · filed 1996-10-29

A defense such as the one asserted here, however central the federal issue it presents may be to the litigation, cannot establish federal removal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in a well-pleaded complaint; a federal issue raised by an answer or anticipated defense does not establish jurisdiction.

Westmoreland Capital Corporation, Joseph M. Jayson and Judith P. Jayson v. George D. Findlay and John F. Joyce · filed 1996-11-07

It is settled beyond doubt that issues of federal law that are injected into a suit by the answer rather than the complaint do not satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot rest on a federal preemption defense that does not appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Partin v. Cableview, Inc. · filed 1996-12-03

Federal preemption is merely a defense to the plaintiffs suit. Thus, it does not appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint, and, therefore, does not authorize removal to a federal court.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; an ordinary federal-law defense does not supply one.

Kemp v. International Business MacHines Corp. · filed 1997-04-08

A case does not arise under federal law unless a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's complaint.

Section 1331 ordinarily supports removal only when a federal claim appears on the face of the complaint; a federal preemption defense alone is insufficient.

Tyree v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. · filed 1997-07-30

Under this rule, in order to base removal jurisdiction on § 1331, the federal claim(s) must appear on the face of the complaint. ... As a general rule, therefore, the assertion of a federal defense, including preemption, does not provide a sufficient basis for removal.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law complaint raises no substantial federal issue and the federal issue appears only as a defense.

Berger Levee Dist. v. United States · filed 1997-10-31

As noted above, the actual or probable assertion of a federal defense is insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction upon a district court if the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint fails to implicate a federal statute or a substantial issue of federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; a defense based on a prior federal judgment does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana · filed 1998-02-24

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, preclusion thus remains a defensive plea involving no recasting of the plaintiff’s complaint, and is therefore not a proper basis for removal.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal-law defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Four Aces Mobile Home Estates v. Lundahl · filed 1998-03-24

However, the standard to be applied in removal cases, known as the well-pleaded complaint rule, looks only to the face of the plaintiffs complaint in determining whether federal question jurisdiction exists.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal claim in the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense does not suffice.

Lanham v. Griffin · filed 1998-06-08

It is perfectly plain that the removal jurisdiction of the federal court depends upon the plaintiffs complaint. Unless the plaintiffs complaint relies upon federal law, there is simply no federal-question removal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s state-law claims do not arise under federal law and federal law appears only as a defense.

Portage County Board of Commissioners v. City of Akron · filed 1998-07-21

The Court also concludes that Defendant City of Akron fails to establish this Court’s jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Because Defendant City of Akron fails to show that Plaintiff Portage County claims “arise under federal law,” under the well-pleaded complaint rule, Defendant City of Akron’s arguments for federal jurisdiction must be taken as defenses. Because federal jurisdiction cannot be predicated upon a defendant’s raising certain laws of the United States as a defense, Defendant City of Akron’s arguments for removal do not survive.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a federal issue may arise as a defense.

Varela-Fernandez v. Burgos · filed 1998-07-30

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal removal jurisdiction may not be asserted because defendants may have a federal defense to a state-law cause of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law complaint based on a federal preemption defense when federal law does not completely preempt the claim.

Kansas Ex Rel. Stovall v. Home Cable Inc. · filed 1998-08-11

In sum, the court finds that HCC’s complete preemption argument fails. The plaintiffs petition does not present a federal question, nor is the court persuaded that the plaintiff has purposefully attempted to avoid this court’s jurisdiction by asserting only state law claims. This court lacks both diversity and federal question jurisdiction and therefore this case must be remanded to state court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a claim might implicate a federal immunity defense.

Gilberg v. Stepan Co. · filed 1998-08-20

Under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, a claimant’s cause of action does not “arise under” the laws of the United States merely because it might implicate a federal immunity defense.

Section 1331 ordinarily requires a federal question in the complaint; a federal preemption defense alone does not establish jurisdiction.

Hanks v. General Motors Corp. · filed 1998-11-10

If the complaint relies only on state law, the district court generally lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the action is not removable. That a defendant raises a substantive federal defense to a state law claim—including a preemption defense— is immaterial for jurisdictional purposes.

Section 1331 requires a substantial, disputed federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; affirmative defenses do not establish federal-question removal jurisdiction.

Foxmeyer Health Corp. v. McKesson Corp. (In Re Foxmeyer Corp.) · filed 1998-11-19

The trustee’s and the defendants’ assertion of federal question removal jurisdiction will rise or fall on the allegations in the well-pleaded complaint, that is, on whether there appears on the face of the complaint some substantial, disputed question of federal law. ... The defendants could have raised, by affirmative defense or on a motion to dismiss or by summary judgment or following trial, their contention that Avatex has alleged only derivative claims belonging to the bankruptcy estates. The defendants could also have asserted their preclusion contention as an affirmative defense. These defenses do not give rise to federal jurisdiction to support removal.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; a possible federal defense to a state-law claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

County of Suffolk v. CBS Lines, Inc. · filed 1998-11-30

In the Court’s view, the defendants have not met their burden that such a determination by the New York State Supreme Court intrinsically raises a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331' regarding the Fifth Amendment’s Taking Clause. At most, the defendants have asserted a possible defense to the County’s complaint that they possess certain property interests that cannot be taken without just compensation. As stated above, however, a state law based cause of action cannot be removed to federal court even where a possible federal defense exists.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims with no dependent federal issue merely because a federal statute may supply a defense.

Greenidge v. Mundo Shipping Corp. · filed 1999-03-03

The Greenidges complaint does not fall prey to the artful pleading proscription; their claims of negligence and conversion are pure state law claims, devoid of any dependent federal issues.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; a federal preemption defense alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Weathington v. United Behavioral Health · filed 1999-03-03

In deciding whether a federal question exists, a court must apply the well-pleaded complaint rule whereby the court looks to the face of the complaint, rather than to any defenses asserted by the defendant.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when ERISA preemption supplies only an affirmative defense to a state-law claim.

Butero v. Royal MacCabees Life Insurance · filed 1999-05-10

As an affirmative defense, defensive preemption does not furnish federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; "a cause of action arises under federal law only when the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law."

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because an ERISA conflict-preemption defense is asserted.

Copling v. The Container Store · filed 1999-05-25

Conflict preemption simply fails to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction when the federal issue is a defense to a state law claim.

Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc. v. Aktiengesellschaft · filed 1999-06-09

Because the Court finds that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine constitutes a defense, it cannot form the basis for federal question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law plaintiff invokes a federal statute only to answer an anticipated defense.

In Re Pfohl Brothers Landfill Litigation · filed 1999-09-22

Third, Plaintiffs’ assertion of the potential relevance of § 9658 is, at most, a possible “defense” to a defense and, as such, cannot provide federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal issue is only a defense to a threatened state-law claim.

Penobscot Nation v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. · filed 2000-07-18

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule as it applies to section 1331, that potential defense to the paper companies’ state lawsuit does not furnish a basis for federal court jurisdiction in this lawsuit.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim in the well-pleaded complaint; anticipating a federal defense does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 640 v. Dueck · filed 2000-08-28

A complaint, though, does not raise a claim under federal law merely by anticipating a federal defense.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in a well-pleaded complaint; an anticipated defense under federal law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Interstate Petroleum Corp. v. Morgan · filed 2001-05-01

Even if Interstate intended to rely on the PMPA as a defense to a counterclaim by the Morgans, or if Interstate anticipated that the Morgans would somehow use the PMPA to defend against Interstate’s contract claims, the well-pleaded complaint rule, of course, precludes finding “arising under” jurisdiction on such grounds.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; a possible federal defense does not establish jurisdiction.

West Virginia Ex Rel. McGraw v. Parrish Automobile Training Co. · filed 2001-05-03

In deciding whether a federal question exists, the Court must apply the well-pleaded complaint rule and look to the face of the complaint, rather than any possible defense the defendant’s may have. ... In this case, the plaintiff has only asserted state law claims so that no federal question jurisdiction exists on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 does not supply federal question jurisdiction over state law claims when federal law provides only a defense and does not completely preempt the claims.

Doyle v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois · filed 2001-06-05

This court respectfully declines to adopt the reasoning of Caudill, and, hence, refuses to permit removal where plaintiffs’ well-pleaded claims do not arise under federal law, and where they are not completely preempted by federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when a federal tariff matters only as a defense.

Continental Forge v. Southern California Gas Co. · filed 2001-10-26

While it is likely that the Federal Tariff will play a role in the resolution of this case, that role will be limited to a defensive one — and a defense based on federal law is an insufficient basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense alone does not establish original jurisdiction.

JC2 v. Grammond · filed 2002-03-18

Federal question jurisdiction exists only if the federal question appears on the face of plaintiffs complaint; if not, original jurisdiction is lacking, even if the defense is based on federal law.

Section 1331 requires federal-question jurisdiction to appear from the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s constitutional defense does not supply it.

Biggerstaff v. Voice Power Telecommunications, Inc. · filed 2002-09-13

Under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides subject matter jurisdiction over only those cases in which the complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law. ... And it is well-settled that a defendant may not cause jurisdiction to lie in federal court simply by raising a constitutional defense to plaintiffs claims. ... Therefore, this court does not have jurisdiction based on defendant’s constitutional defenses.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an interpleader action based on the interpleader plaintiff’s own federal defenses to the original complaint; the interpleader exception concerns potential defenses of the interpleader defendants.

Coastal Rehabilitation Services, P.A. v. Cooper · filed 2003-03-31

Winyah Defendants argue that there is federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because at least two of their defenses to Coastal’s complaint raise questions of federal law. ... However, this exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule does not apply in this case because neither of the defendants to Winyah Defendants’ interpleader action — Coastal or the United States — have raised any defenses that raise a question under federal law and that they could have asserted in a coercive action. Rather, Winyah Defendants are attempting to base federal jurisdiction on its own defenses to the original state court complaint instead of the potential defenses of the interpleader defendants. Thus, there is no federal question or other subject matter jurisdiction in this case after the United States has been dismissed.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a federal statute may supply a defense.

Peter N. Heydon and Henrietta Heydon v. Mediaone of Southeast Michigan, Inc. · filed 2003-04-30

Thus, the provision of the Cable Act cited by the Heydons, which may afford MediaOne a defense to a state law trespass action, does not create federal jurisdiction.