28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a federal regulatory issue arises only as a defense to a state-law claim.

DETROIT REHABILITATION INITIATIVES, LLC v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF INDIANAPOLIS · filed 2019-09-18

But the federal regulations are raised only by FHLBI in response to DRI’s allegations, in other words, as a defense. “A case may not be removed on the basis of a federal defense.”

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law claim raises a federal constitutional issue only as a defense.

City of Manchester v. Doctor Johns, Inc · filed 2019-09-24

Here, Doctor Johns bases for removal concern only a federal defense – that Manchester’s ordinance is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. This does not create federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim based solely on a federal defense unless federal law completely preempts state law.

Yee v. ClubCorp Holdings, Inc. · filed 2019-10-03

Unless federal law completely preempts state law, however, a federal defense to a state law claim is an insufficient basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal question in the plaintiff's complaint; a federal defense alone is insufficient.

614 Shady Lane, LLC v. Roan · filed 2019-12-02

However, Plaintiff's unlawful detainer complaint does not establish federal question jurisdiction. Defendants might assert a federal defense; however, a federal defense alone is insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction depends on the plaintiff’s claims for relief; an anticipated federal defense does not establish it.

U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v. Hale · filed 2019-12-09

Removing defendant(s) asserts that the affirmative defenses at issue give rise to federal question jurisdiction, but “the existence of federal jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those claims.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a federal defense to a state-law unlawful detainer claim.

Onni South Hill, LP v. Knight · filed 2019-12-13

Thus, to the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

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

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Pollerana · filed 2020-01-07

To establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, the party invoking jurisdiction must show a federal question or diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. ... However, “[a] defense that raises a federal question is inadequate to confer federal jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because federal common law may provide a defense to it.

Gafcon, Inc. v. AECOM Caribe, LLP · filed 2020-01-08

While the Court expresses no opinion as to the merit of Plaintiff’s argument on the merits, the Court also rejects Defendant’s argument that federal common law is “necessarily raised” or controls the case simply because it provides a potential defense to allegations in the Complaint.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims seeking equitable relief against state laws allegedly preempted by federal law.

Chamber of Commerce of the USA v. Becerra · filed 2020-02-07

The court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, the court’s equitable power is sufficient to establish jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ federal preemption claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim seeking to enjoin state agency action as preempted by federal law.

Notz v. Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities · filed 2020-02-07

Here, the complaint seeks injunctive relief against a state agency on the ground that the state agency’s policy is preempted by federal law. That is enough to confer federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful detainer action based on a federal defense.

Palm Chaparral Apartments, LLC v. Miramontes · filed 2020-02-09

Thus, to the extent Defendants’ defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 depends on the plaintiff’s claims for relief; a federal affirmative defense does not establish it.

Bird Rock Home Mortgage, LLC v. Damiano · filed 2020-02-26

An “affirmative defense based on federal law” does not “render[] an action brought in state court removable.”

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction depends on the plaintiff’s claims for relief, not anticipated federal defenses.

West Coast Servicing Inc. v. Powell · filed 2020-03-02

Removing defendant(s) asserts that the affirmative defenses at issue give rise to federal question jurisdiction, but “the existence of federal jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those claims.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the defendant raises a federal defense.

CAH 2015-1 Borrower, LLC v. Rasmussen · filed 2020-03-13

There is no federal question jurisdiction simply because there is a federal defense to the claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction based on a federal defense.

Faircloth v. AR Resources, Inc. · filed 2020-04-20

Although AR Resources’ present motion seeks dismissal based on federal preemption, a federal defense does not establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a federal issue arises only as an anticipated defense to a state-law claim.

Silver Phoenix, LLC v. Trinity Health-Michigan D/B/A St. Joseph Mercy Oakland · filed 2020-04-24

Michigan recognizes the defense that a contract’s terms are illegal, but anticipated defenses do not provide the basis of “arising under” jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction cannot rest on a defendant’s federal defense when the plaintiff’s claims arise under local law.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Robinson · filed 2020-05-15

The Robinsons claim the Court has federal question jurisdiction, but it does not. ... Regardless, the Robinsons’ defense cannot support jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law action merely because tribal sovereign immunity may be raised as a defense.

Mendoza v. First Santa Fe Insurance Services, Inc. · filed 2020-08-18

As the Supreme Court has made clear, the possibility of tribal sovereign immunity does not convert a state law action into one “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the United States.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a potential constitutional defense to state-law claims.

Louisa v. Boston Broadside · filed 2020-09-18

Defendant may raise a defense to the defamation claim under the First Amendment, but the existence of a defense based on the Constitution, under the circumstances presented here, cannot form the basis of federal-question jurisdiction.

A federal defense to a state-law contract claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Benchmark Contracting, Inc. v. Nevada Partners Inc. · filed 2020-09-21

But jurisdiction cannot be based on a federal defense.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a defendant raises a federal defense.

Kofa v. Marshall · filed 2020-10-14

Yet, a federal defense is not a proper ground for removal and is insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction. ... As this case does not involve a federal question within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, no federal question jurisdiction supports removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

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

Comer v. Shepard Insurance Group Inc. · filed 2020-11-04

Moreover, even under a generous reading of SIG’s arguments here, the most it asserts is a defense arising from an unspecified provision of federal law, which is wholly insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal preemption is raised only as a defense.

Yan v. US Aviation Group, LLC · filed 2020-12-22

Moreover, to the extent that USAG asserts that its complained-of actions and policies were required by federal aviation regulations, such assertion is a defense relying on the preemptive effect of those federal regulations and thus is not sufficient to sustain the Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a tribal sovereign immunity defense may arise.

Mitchell v. Bailey · filed 2020-12-30

The prospect of a tribal sovereign immunity defense does not, in and of itself, “convert a suit otherwise arising under state law into one which, in the statutory sense, arises under federal law.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a federal defense may apply.

Schifanelli v. Jourdak · filed 2021-01-12

Moreover, if any arguments with respect to preclusion are relevant in this case, they are only relevant as a defense against Schifanelli’s state law claims. As such, they do not provide a basis for this Court’s federal question jurisdiction: “Congress has long since decided that federal defenses do not provide a basis for removal.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a defendant raises a federal defense.

JLL Properties, LLC v. Ward · filed 2021-03-01

Moreover, Defendants’ attempt to raise federal issues pursuant to the CARES Act simply does not create federal jurisdiction because they are merely claiming a “‘substantive federal defense to a state-law claim [which does] not raise a federal question.’” In re Blackwater Sec. Consulting, LLC, 460 F.3d 576, 584 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 USS. 149, 152 (1908)); see also Caterpillar Inc., 482 U.S. at 393.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that state regulation is preempted by federal law even when the complaint does not expressly cite the Supremacy Clause.

Medicaid and Medicare Advantage Association of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Cestero-Lopatequi · filed 2021-03-01

They also cite the U.S. Constitution as a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over the this matter, meaning that, in conjunction with the fact that the preemption claims flow from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Plaintiffs’ claims ipso facto “arise under” federal law for purpose of § 1331, even if the Supremacy Clause is not explicitly cited.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the defendant may raise a federal immunity defense.

Flavell v. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development · filed 2021-03-25

For these reasons, the Court is unpersuaded by IBRD’s attempt to invoke federal question jurisdiction in this case based on its own potential federal immunity to Plaintiff’s common law action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the supposed federal issue is only a defense to a claim.

Mizrachi v. Abdullaev · filed 2021-04-09

It is well established that a federal defense does not provide a basis for subject matter jurisdiction, “even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim solely because a federal statute may be raised as a defense.

Padilla v. Brookfield Healthcare Center · filed 2021-04-19

Thus, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case solely because the PREP Act may be raised as a defense.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful detainer action solely because the defendant raises a CARES Act defense.

Cross v. Whelan · filed 2021-06-24

Here, to the extent Defendants are raising the CARES Act as a defense to the unlawful detainer action, “a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. Thus, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over preemption claims when issues of federal law appear on the face of the complaint.

Young Conservatives of Texas Foundation v. The University of North Texas · filed 2021-07-28

Binding Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent establish that federal courts have federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for preemption claims when issues of federal law appear on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when PREP Act immunity supplies only a federal defense and the Act does not completely preempt those claims.

Estate of Jennifer Joan Vyden v. Vista Del Sol LTC, Inc. · filed 2021-08-05

As such, the Court would decline to hold that the PREP Act is one of the rare statutes to which complete preemption applies. ... Additionally, PREP Act immunity relates to Defendant’s defense, rather than the claims Plaintiffs allege. ... The Court thus would conclude it does not have federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on federal law raised in a defense.

Joyner v. Alston & Bird LLP · filed 2021-09-21

Federal law raised in defenses does not grant subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based solely on a federal defense to a state-law claim.

Saba v. Sinutko · filed 2021-10-27

There is no federal question jurisdiction simply because there is a federal defense to the claim.

Section 1331 does not confer original jurisdiction solely because a defendant raises a federal preemption defense.

HAKIM INTERNATIONAL TRADING v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2021-11-30

The Court also notes that Section 1331 does not confer it with original jurisdiction merely because the Oshinsky Defendants raise the federal defense of preemption in their motion to dismiss.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action based on a defendant’s federal-law defenses.

Tokita v. Bush · filed 2021-12-13

Thus, to the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based solely on a defendant’s federal defense.

The People of the State of New York v. Parker · filed 2022-01-10

Defendant’s assertion of a federal defense does not create original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on an ordinary federal preemption defense to state-law claims.

BM CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. v. MASCIARELLI · filed 2022-02-16

Removal would be improper even if Defendants’ conduct were preempted under Machinists or NLRA Section 7. Neither preemption defense creates federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over actions seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against state officials on the ground that federal law preempts state regulation.

Medicaid and Medicare Advantage Products Association of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Carrau-Martinez · filed 2022-03-25

Against this backdrop, there is “no doubt that federal courts have jurisdiction under [28 U.S.C.] § 1331” over an action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against state officials on the grounds that a state regulation was preempted by federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based solely on a PREP Act immunity defense.

Massamore v. RBRC, Inc. · filed 2022-03-31

The PREP Act’s immunity provision is no more than “a federal defense,” which doesn’t create federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a federal defense does not preempt the plaintiff’s state-law claims.

Holt v. Bradken, Inc. · filed 2022-04-18

This Court does not have federal question jurisdiction because Defendant’s federal defense does not preempt Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that a local regulation is preempted by federal law.

Crown Castle Fiber LLC v. City of Pasadena, Texas · filed 2022-08-02

Because the basis of one of Crown Castle’s claims is that the Design Manual is preempted by federal, the Court finds federal subject matter jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a defendant raises federal preemption only as a defense to state-law claims.

Billups v. AT&T Corporation · filed 2023-01-19

As a result, the Court finds Plaintiff’s claims are state law claims and the defenses raised by Defendants are not enough to confer federal jurisdiction on the ground of complete preemption.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a preemption defense unless federal law completely preempts the state-law claim.

Synder v. Boise County · filed 2023-01-25

In the absence of complete preemption, courts are in wide agreement that using the defense of preemption is not enough to create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a defendant may raise a PREP Act defense.

Lopez v. Cantex Health Care Centers II, LLC · filed 2023-02-24

The Court finds these cases persuasive and concludes that the PREP Act does not completely preempt state law claims, and a PREP Act defense does not create federal question jurisdiction or allow the removal of these cases.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the defendant raises a PREP Act defense; the PREP Act does not completely preempt those claims.

Murphy v. Cantex Health Care Centers II, LLC · filed 2023-02-24

The Court finds these cases persuasive and concludes that the PREP Act does not completely preempt state law claims, and a PREP Act defense does not create federal question jurisdiction or allow the removal of these cases.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims that turn on the preemptive effect of federal law.

Allied Telecom Group, LLC v. District of Columbia · filed 2023-07-24

The Court’s federal-question jurisdiction is otherwise clear: Because Allied’s claims turn on the preemptive effect of federal law—the Telecommunications Act and the FCC’s implementing regulations—the case presents a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based solely on a federal-law exemption raised as a defense to state-law claims.

Gil v. Outback, Inc. · filed 2023-12-05

Outback’s assertion that the FLSA is implicated by way of an exemption is not a legally sufficient basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim seeking to enjoin state action allegedly preempted by federal law; whether preemption succeeds is a question on the merits.

Wheels Financial Group LLC v. Stolfi · filed 2025-01-07

Defendants’ argument that preemption should not apply in this case goes to the merits, not this Court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state claim merely because the defendant raises an RLA preemption defense.

Farmer v. United Parcel Service Co. · filed 2025-01-23

However, a preemption defense based on the RLA does not give a federal court jurisdiction over a state claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a federal preemption defense to a state-law claim.

Garcia v. White Cap Management · filed 2025-12-16

Here, Defendants’ reliance on FOTETA’s preemptive effect is a defense that cannot create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a defendant raises a federal preemption defense.

Benjamin White; White Cloud Adventures LLC v. Recreation Risk Retention Group, Inc.; Jared Potter · filed 2026-03-23

While Recreation asserts a federal preemption defense that affects which state law should apply, that defense does not appear on the face of the Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded Complaint and is insufficient to clothe the court with federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal question jurisdiction over claims that federal law preempts a state regulation.

United States of America v. Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education · filed 2026-03-31

District courts have federal question jurisdiction over claims that allege state regulations are void on preemption ... grounds and original jurisdiction over cases in which the United States is the plaintiff.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a suit seeking to enjoin state regulation on the ground that a federal statute preempts it.

Lawrence County v. Lead-Deadwood School District No. 40-1 · filed 1985-01-09

This ruling was erroneous. In Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U. S. 85 (1983), we granted declaratory relief to a party challenging a state statute on pre-emption grounds, reaffirming the general rule that “[a] plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief from state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is pre-empted by a federal statute which, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, must prevail, thus presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 to resolve.” Id., at 96, n. 14.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction over a claim that federal law preempts state law.

Lewis Ex Rel. Young v. Alexander · filed 2012-06-20

But here Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction so long as there is a “civil action[] arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.19 In any event, Shaw post-dates Gonzalez and commands that jurisdiction and a cause of action are present here.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a suit seeking to enjoin state regulation on the ground that federal law preempts it.

Forest County Potawatomi Community Of Wisconsin v. Norquist · filed 1995-01-17

A plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief from state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is pre-empted by a federal statute which, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, must prevail, thus presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 to resolve.

Section 1331(a) does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the defendant asserts federal preemption as a defense.

First National Bank v. Aberdeen National Bank · filed 1980-08-06(a)

Here also, we conclude that the defendants’ allegations of preemption in Aberdeen and Duluth were defenses to plaintiffs’ state law claims and not grounds for removal, the district courts did not have jurisdiction based on a federal question or otherwise, and the cases should be remanded to the state courts.

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction over a declaratory preemption claim that raises a federal controversy beyond a defense to a state action.

Trailways v. State Corp. Com'n of State of Kan. · filed 1983-06-03(a)

Trailways brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2201 (the Declaratory Judgment Act) and jurisdiction is grounded on 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331(a), the existence of a federal question. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is premised on the argument that plaintiff’s suit is nothing more than a federal defense to the state court action and that there is no federal jurisdiction. In the Court’s view, however, plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action raises more than a mere defense to the state court suit and is clearly grounded in federal law. Jurisdiction exists in this court.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a federal preemption claim even when the federal law provides no private right of action.

Crown Castle Fiber v. City of Pasadena · filed 2023-08-04

Crown Castle’s claims are justiciable. Because its preemption claim presents a federal question, that establishes jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, even when an affirmative defense may defeat those claims.

Calloway v. Morgan · filed 2025-07-01

And Ms. Calloway’s Complaint is sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on claims arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a defendant asserts a preemption defense or the state-law claims are preempted.

South Dakota Ex Rel. South Dakota Railroad Authority v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. · filed 2003-07-07

Neither BNSF’s assertion of a preemption defense nor the fact of preemption of plaintiffs’ state law claims would provide a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the defendant may raise a federal preemption defense.

Shaner v. Fleet Bank · filed 2001-02-27

This court must conclude, therefore, that the mere fact that Fleet Bank may ultimately raise a defense that Shaner’s state law claims cannot be brought because federal law, which has supremacy over state law, dictates that the claims are barred does not mean that Shaner has brought federal claims.

A federal preemption defense does not create § 1331 jurisdiction when no federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint.

People of California v. Glendale Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 1979-06-20

In their complaint plaintiffs rely exclusively on California law. No federal question appears on the face of the complaint. A federal question enters this case only by way of the defense of federal preemption. ... The Supreme Court has specifically prohibited the Court from doing exactly that.

Section 1331(a) removal jurisdiction generally must appear on the face of the complaint, and a federal tax-sale or preemption defense does not convert a well-pleaded state replevin claim into a federal question.

Freeman v. Colonial Liquors, Inc. · filed 1980-11-25(a)

Whether removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) hinges upon defendant’s assertion that plaintiff’s claim “arises under” federal law and that, therefore, this court had original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... The instant complaint contains allegations only as to a state law replevin action. Such a cause of action is neither dependent upon a federal right nor is federal law an essential element of a replevin claim. ... That defendant may ultimately defeat plaintiff’s state law action by asserting the validity of the tax sale does not thereby convert plaintiff’s claim to one involving a federal question. ... the better view holds that although a state law claim may be preempted by federal law, the preemption is simply a defense and does not provide a basis for removal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 removal requires a substantial federal issue that is essential to the plaintiff's claim and disclosed on the complaint's face; a federal-preemption defense is insufficient.

Schultz v. Coral Gables Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 1981-01-21

In assessing the propriety of removal in a case such as this, the rules for determining whether a controversy “arises under” federal law, thereby creating federal question jurisdiction, are well established. First, federal law must be an “essential” element of the plaintiff’s cause of action. ... Second, the federal question which is the predicate for removal “must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer or by the petition for removal.” ... Third, the federal question may not be inferred from a defense asserted or one expected to be made. ... Fourth, the federal question raised must be a “substantial” one. ... Coral Gables’ theory of federal preemption is in the nature of an affirmative defense. In other words, the federal question of preemption enters this case only by way of defense. ... Coral Gables cannot create removal jurisdiction by anticipating the defense of federal preemption in its petition for removal or its answer.

Section 1331(a) requires a substantial federal claim on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; an anticipated federal-preemption defense cannot convert a state contract claim into one arising under federal law.

Trent Realty Associates v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 1981-08-17(a)

For original federal question jurisdiction there must be “a substantial claim founded ‘directly’ upon federal law.” ... It is by now well established that the federal question must appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. Federal jurisdiction cannot be created by anticipating that a defense based on federal law will be filed to a claim based on state law. ... However, that potential federal defense cannot convert the complaint to one “arising under” federal law, since it is apparent that plaintiff did not base its claim on federal law.

A federal preemption defense ordinarily does not create Section 1331 removal jurisdiction because it does not appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

McCoy v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology · filed 1991-03-01

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

Section 1331 generally does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint relying only on state law, even when the defendant raises a federal preemption defense.

Burke v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. · filed 1993-04-06

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 federal defense to a state law claim, including a preemption defense, is immaterial for jurisdictional purposes.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when an ERISA § 1132 preemption defense completely displaces a state claim, but not when the defense rests on ERISA § 1144 alone.

Alexander v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation James Jeros Steven Brechtelsbauer Jane Doe · filed 1994-01-06

Consequently, we believe that a defense premised on § 1132 preemption creates federal question jurisdiction, but that one based on § 1144 preemption does not.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the defendant raises a federal preemption defense.

Levitanksy v. FIA Card Services, N.A. · filed 2007-06-08

The existence of a federal defense, including the defense of pre-emption by federal law, will not bring a plaintiffs state-law claim within the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer original federal-question jurisdiction solely because a defendant raises a federal preemption defense to a state-law claim.

Marin General Hospital v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co. · filed 2009-09-10

The general rule is that a defense of federal preemption of a state-law claim, even conflict preemption under § 514(a) of ERISA, is an insufficient basis for original federal question jurisdiction under § 1331(a) and removal jurisdiction under § 1441(a).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the defendant invokes the ICCTA only as a preemption defense to state-law claims.

Shupp v. Reading Blue Mountain · filed 2012-02-07

The circumstances underlying this particular case preclude the Court from finding that Defendant’s invocation of the ICCTA forms the basis of an action “arising under” federal law. It is raised as a defense, and forms no part of Plaintiffs claim.

A federal preemption defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction unless federal law completely preempts the entire field, and federal law has not supplanted all state foreclosure law.

Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Damron · filed 2014-06-09

But unless federal law has completely preempted an entire field of law (and no federal law has supplanted all of state foreclosure law), the defense of federal preemption, like any federal defense, is never an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over a state unlawful detainer action based on a tenant’s asserted PTFA preemption defense.

(PS) (UD) Smith v. Alhindi · filed 2019-09-04

Under § 1331, district courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Federal question jurisdiction cannot be based on an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. ... Other courts have rejected removal arguments premised on PTFA preemption, as does this court.

A federal preemption defense, including ERISA conflict preemption, does not establish original federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Pirouzian v. Children Specialists of San Diego · filed 2020-04-10

However, the general rule is that a defense of federal preemption of a state-law claim, even conflict preemption under ERISA § 514(a), is an insufficient basis for original federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) and removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the defendant has a federal preemption defense.

People of State of Illinois v. Archer Daniels Midland Company · filed 1983-04-04

Hence there is no federal subject-matter jurisdiction, which depends in this case on a showing that the case can be maintained under the Declaratory Judgment Act; for if it cannot be so maintained, the only basis for removal, or for an original action in federal court, would be that the defendant had a defense of federal preemption, which is not a valid basis for original or removal jurisdiction in this circuit.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when federal preemption arises only as a defense to a state-law claim.

Powers v. South Central United Food & Commercial Workers Unions And Employers Health & Welfare Trust · filed 1983-10-31

As we have discussed, federal preemption of state law is a defense to Powers' claim and, while its assertion may well interject a federal question into this case, not every federal question presented in a case means that the case "arises under" federal law for purposes of original jurisdiction under section 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a claim that state judicial proceedings are preempted by federal law.

Kewadin Casinos Gaming Authority v. Draganchuk · filed 2022-08-24

Following the logic of Lawrence and Shaw, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Kewadin’s claim that state (judicial) regulation is preempted by a federal statute because such a claim presents a federal question.

A claim that the Supremacy Clause preempts a state statute arises under federal law for purposes of Section 1331 even when no other constitutional claim is asserted.

Fouke Company v. Mandel · filed 1974-12-05

Accordingly, although this Court’s research has disclosed no case in which a Supremacy Clause challenge to a state statute, standing alone, has been held to “arise under” federal law, and although this Court notes Professor Wright’s statement that “it cannot be said that any clear test has yet been developed to determine which cases ‘arise under’ the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”, C. Wright ... at 54-55, there would seem to be no reason why such a Supremacy Clause claim does not so arise.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over Supremacy Clause preemption claims even when the federal statute at issue creates no private right of action.

Day v. Bond · filed 2007-12-17

These cases support the general proposition that a federal law need not include a private right of action in order to support federal question jurisdiction when a party pursues a preemption claim arising under the Supremacy Clause.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state's claim that a federal agency rule is invalid because it unlawfully preempts state law when federal statutory interpretation forms the basis of the claim rather than merely a defense to a state-law claim.

Texas v. United States · filed 2015-03-26

Here, unlike in Franchise Tax Board, the issues involving interpretation of federal statutes do not arise merely as defenses for state law claims. Rather, preemption is the basis for the Plaintiffs’ claim that the Final Rule is invalid stated in the Amended Complaint. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Shelly Oil doctrine and Franchise Tax Board do not apply and the Court retains jurisdiction to hear this claim.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a suit seeking to enjoin state or local officials from enforcing allegedly preempted state law, even when the challenged enforcement takes the form of a lawsuit.

Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. City of Cleveland · filed 2012-09-26

Federal courts have jurisdiction under § 1331 “over suits to enjoin state officials from interfering with federal rights” by enforcing state laws that are preempted by federal law. ... Ultimately, the fact that the official action that Chase Bank seeks to enjoin and declare preempted is a lawsuit might raise Anti-Injunction Act or abstention issues, but does not affect the subject-matter jurisdiction analysis. Because Chase Bank’s suit raised a federal question under the Supremacy Clause, the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a suit seeking to enjoin enforcement of state law on the ground that federal law preempts it.

Metrobank, National Ass'n v. Foster · filed 2001-08-21

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is generally governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, under which federal jurisdiction must exist on the face of plaintiffs complaint. ... In effect, this creates an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule when a plaintiff seeks an injunction on grounds that state law is preempted by federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a suit seeking to enjoin state regulation on the ground that a federal statute preempts it.

Fuller v. Bartlett · filed 1995-07-20

First, the Commissioner argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over these cases because the complaints fail to state a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Speaking to the issue of federal question jurisdiction, the court held “a plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief from state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is pre-empted by a federal statute ... presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction ... to resolve.” ... The procedural similarity between the suits at bar and Shaw compels the conclusion that the Court possesses jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a private party’s suit to enjoin state regulation on the ground that federal law preempts it.

Bud Antle, Inc. v. Barbosa · filed 1995-01-17

We would ordinarily have little difficulty deciding this issue, for it appears to be the general rule that a private party may seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of a state statutory scheme on the ground of federal preemption. See Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96 n. 14, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 2899, n. 14, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983) ("A plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief from state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is preempted by a federal statute which, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, must prevail, thus presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 to resolve.").

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a suit seeking to enjoin state officials from enforcing state regulation allegedly preempted by federal law.

Sprint Corp. v. Evans · filed 1993-04-07

A plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief from state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is preempted by a federal statute which, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, must prevail, thus presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to resolve. ... Gn the basis of this authority, this court holds that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over Sprint’s preemption claim and that Sprint has a valid federal cause of action.

A declaratory and injunctive claim that a state statute is preempted by ERISA arises under Section 1331 when it vindicates a federal right rather than merely anticipating a defense to threatened state litigation.

Michigan United Food & Commercial Workers Unions v. Baerwaldt · filed 1983-06-16

Where, as here, plaintiffs base their complaint for both declaratory and injunctive relief from a state statute upon a claim of federal preemption, I hold that plaintiffs are seeking to vindicate a federal right, not just ward off a state suit. ... They therefore have properly pleaded federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a suit seeking to enjoin state officials from enforcing state regulation allegedly preempted by federal law.

Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · filed 1983-06-24

A plaintiff who seeks injunctiVe relief from state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is pre-empted by a federal statute which, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the! Constitution, must prevail, thus presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 to resolve.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a claim seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that a state statute is preempted by ERISA.

Blue Cross v. Peacock's Apothecary, Inc. · filed 1983-07-13

Accordingly, this court concludes that subject matter jurisdiction exists for plaintiffs ERISA preemption claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A suit to enjoin state regulation as federally preempted presents a federal question under Section 1331, even though preemption might otherwise be a defense to state enforcement.

Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission Of California · filed 1983-09-27

A plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief from state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is pre-empted by a federal statute which, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, must prevail, thus presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 to resolve. ... Because Southern Pacific's complaint sought to enjoin enforcement of an order it claimed to be preempted by federal law, the case "arose under" federal law.

Section 1331 supports a declaratory and injunctive action asserting federal preemption when plaintiffs seek to vindicate a federal right rather than merely anticipate a defense to a threatened state suit.

MICH. UNITED FOOD & COM. WKRS. UNIONS v. Baerwaldt · filed 1983-09-28

Where, as here, plaintiffs base their complaint for both declaratory and injunctive relief from a state statute upon a claim of federal preemption, I hold that plaintiffs are seeking to vindicate a federal right, not just ward off a state suit. See Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation v. Ilsley, 690 F.2d 323 (2d Cir.1982). They therefore have properly pleaded federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over a federal agency’s Supremacy Clause and federal statutory action challenging state interference with an exclusively federal regulatory scheme.

Federal Home Loan Bank Board v. Empie · filed 1983-07-25

This Court finds that it has original jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that the matter in controversy arises under the Constitution of the United States, article VI, cl. 2, and the laws of the United States, the HOLA, as amended, ... et seq.

A federal-preemption defense to a state-law claim does not make the action arise under Section 1331 for removal purposes.

Powers v. South Central United Food & Commercial Workers Unions & Employers Health & Welfare Trust · filed 1983-10-31

In summary, we hold that a defense of federal preemption of state law claims does not suffice to bring a case within the original jurisdiction of the federal courts. The extent to which a federal question is raised by such a defense will not serve to define the action as one “arising under” federal law for purposes of removal.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over an action seeking to enjoin enforcement of an order on federal-preemption grounds.

CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margery H. BROWN, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees · filed 1984-04-26

Where an appellant seeks to enjoin enforcement of an order on the basis of preemption, the court has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when the federal constitutional issue appears only as an anticipated defense rather than as the basis of the plaintiff’s own cause of action.

Hughes-Bechtol, Inc. v. West Virginia Board of Regents · filed 1984-06-18

The District Court had no jurisdiction to determine appellant’s rights under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) involving the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution, as this statute does not confer jurisdiction. It is settled that a suit arises under the Constitution only if the plaintiff’s own cause of action is based thereupon, and it is not enough that plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action which can be raised under the Constitution.

Section 1331 covers a preemption claim whose resolution requires construing a federal statute even when that statute provides no private enforcement action.

Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy, Inc. v. County of Suffolk · filed 1985-03-18

Plaintiff’s first claim for relief, along with the identical claims of the intervenors, must necessarily arise under the AEA, notwithstanding that the AEA does not provide for private' enforcement of its terms.

A state-law claim does not arise under federal law merely because federal preemption may defeat it when federal law does not itself supply the cause of action.

United Jersey Banks v. Parell · filed 1986-02-14

United Jersey’s suit does not “arise under” any federal statute. The fact that United Jersey’s claim under state law may be defeated because of the preemptive effect of federal banking laws does not mean that such federal laws provide the basis of the cause of action, as in the case of § 301 of the LMRA.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a suit to enjoin state regulation as preempted by federal law.

Channel One Systems, Inc. v. Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control · filed 1986-04-11

Channel One seeks to enjoin the DPUC from enforcing its Decision claiming that the DPUC’s action is preempted by the Cable Act. Without more, the complaint raises a federal question. 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.

Section 1331 does not support removal when federal preemption is merely a defense to a state-law claim and the well-pleaded complaint does not arise under federal law.

Ferris v. General Dynamics Corp. · filed 1986-10-08

As mentioned above, the meaning of neither the Agreement nor the Plan are in issue. Rather, the essence of the plaintiffs’ complaint is the viability of these arrangements, as they are admittedly phrased, in the face of R.I.Gen.Laws § 40.-1-3-15. Viewed in the proper analytic framework, therefore, the second stage inquiry as to whether or not the state statute will survive the supposed preemptive effects of the LMRA/ERISA double whammy is a matter of GDC’s defense. Accordingly, the well pleaded complaint rule prevails. The suit, objectively scanned, does not “arise under” federal law in the requisite jurisdictional sense, and the claim of removal jurisdiction derivative from 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was improvidently voiced.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over an ERISA fiduciary's and participant's action to enjoin municipal regulation as preempted when the plaintiffs seek to enforce federal rights rather than merely anticipate a federal defense to a state-law claim.

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bodle · filed 1986-11-15

In the action before the Court, a participant and the fiduciary of the benefit plans are seeking a declaration of their rights under the plan, claiming that the tax imposed by the city is in violation of ERISA. Plaintiffs could have brought this action as a traditional action for equitable relief without seeking a declaratory judgment. Plaintiffs have federal question jurisdiction to bring this action independent of the request for a declaratory judgment. This is not a case where the city is seeking to enforce its municipal tax ordinances and the defense of federal law pre-emption is being raised.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over concrete, substantial federal constitutional and preemption claims alleging actual or threatened injury.

Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Railroad Commission of Texas · filed 1987-01-27

The Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges seven causes of action. The first three contain their federal preemption allegations; the fourth and fifth allege federal constitutional violations, the sixth cause states an action under Texas law, and the last cause complains of arbitrary and capricious state action. It is apparent to the Court that in light of the principles set forth above, this case involves claims that clearly present a federal question. The Court finds that this controversy is a real and substantial dispute between adverse parties; it is neither hypothetical nor abstract. Moreover, it is clear that the Plaintiffs have alleged a threatened or actual injury from alleged illegal activity of the Defendants, and therefore have standing to assert these claims. Accordingly, this Court’s jurisdiction over six of Plaintiffs’ seven causes has been properly invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2201.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over actions alleging that ERISA or the National Labor Relations Act preempts enforcement of a state administrative order.

Hydrostorage, Inc. v. Northern California Boilermakers Local Joint Apprenticeship Committee · filed 1988-05-04

Hydrostorage seeks relief against enforcement of an order by DAS under § 1777.5 alleging preemption by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, ... and the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 151. The complaint presents a federal question of which this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

NLRA preemption under the NLRB’s primary jurisdiction does not create Section 1331 original or removal jurisdiction; a removed action within Sections 7 and 8 must be remanded for the state court to resolve preemption.

Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant · filed 1988-11-17

That sections 7 and 8 do not confer original federal question jurisdiction on the federal district courts should end our inquiry in this case. As we said in the foregoing section of our analysis, when a district court lacks original jurisdiction, it likewise lacks removal jurisdiction. Lacking jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c) requires the district court to remand the action to the state court.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a suit seeking coercive injunctive relief against state regulation as preempted by federal law, even when declaratory relief is also requested.

Pacific Merchant Shipping Ass'n v. Aubry · filed 1989-03-01

The present case, however, involves a request for coercive injunctive relief, in addition to declaratory relief. In such a situation, the Supreme Court has recognized that federal question jurisdiction is appropriate: ... Because the court has subject matter jurisdiction of this dispute under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as one arising under the Constitution, it need not address the question of whether, nevertheless, it would have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1), as a case arising under its admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction cannot rest on a federal preemption defense or the mere implication of a federal question when the complaint asserts only state law.

Wallace v. Ryan-Walsh Stevedoring Co., Inc. · filed 1989-03-09

Without more, Wallace's state court Petition would not give rise to federal question jurisdiction, since it is brought solely under Texas law and raises no issue of federal law. ... The Supreme Court, however, has steadfastly maintained the position that a defense of pre-emption does not create federal question jurisdiction, even if the defense is anticipated and raised in the complaint. ... The mere implication of a question of federal law does not create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a Supremacy Clause claim that federal law preempts a state statute.

Saturn Distribution Corp. v. Williams · filed 1989-08-17

Supremacy Clause challenges to state laws present federal questions under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... This Court therefore properly has jurisdiction of this case.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a declaratory action asserting that local regulation is preempted under the Supremacy Clause when the federal question is a controlling element of the plaintiff's claim.

Coparr, Ltd. v. City of Boulder · filed 1989-10-03

Accordingly, the dispute is within the subject matter jurisdiction granted in 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction for a preemption challenge when preemption arises only as a defense to an antecedent state-law issue.

Federal Express Corporation v. Tennessee Public Service Commission · filed 1989-10-06

Relying on Public Service Comm'n v. Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. 237 (1952) and Michigan Savings and Loan v. Francis, 683 F.2d 957 (6th Cir.1982), the district court identified the crucial issues of the case: whether the Tennessee Motor Carrier Act was applicable to Federal Express and whether federal preemption arose only as a defense to that initial issue. Declining to reach the merits of the dispute, the district court dismissed the case for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. ... Upon review of the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr., Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, we conclude that he properly analyzed the issues and reached a correct result. Accordingly, we AFFIRM based on the reasoning of the district court opinion.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a suit seeking to enjoin state regulation on the ground that a federal statute preempts it under the Supremacy Clause.

Hydrostorage, Inc. v. Northern California Boilermakers Local Joint Apprenticeship Committee · filed 1989-12-06

Here, Hydrostorage is seeking, among other remedies, injunctive relief from state regulation, arguing that the underlying state statutes are preempted under the supremacy clause by ERISA. In a case such as this, the supremacy clause and the federal statute provide subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We conclude that the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over an action seeking to enjoin state officials from enforcing state regulation that federal law allegedly preempts.

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Puerto Rico · filed 1990-06-21

A plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief from state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is pre-empted by a federal statute which, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, must prevail, thus presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to resolve. ... a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief from a state enforcement action, on the ground that state law is preempted by a federal statute.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over suits to enjoin state officials from enforcing state law allegedly in violation of federal rights.

Philip Morris Inc. v. Harshbarger · filed 1996-11-22

It has long been established under a series of cases beginning with ... that a federal court has jurisdiction over a suit to enjoin a state official’s prospective enforcement of a state regulation in violation of the plaintiffs, federal rights.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state regulation alleged to be preempted by federal law.

Associated Builders And Contractors v. Perry · filed 1997-06-05

It asks instead for injunctive and declaratory relief from state regulation based on federal question jurisdiction. There is substantial authority in support of the district court's decision to accept such jurisdiction. ... The district court did not err in assuming jurisdiction to ensure that the interests of Associated's members were not jeopardized by state interference with their federal rights.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a suit seeking relief from state regulation on federal preemption grounds only if the plaintiff is adverse to the state enforcing authorities.

Concerned Citizens of Cohocton Valley, Inc. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation · filed 1997-09-02

It is similarly beyond dispute that when a plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory “relief from state regulation” on the ground that the state law is preempted by a federal statute, the plaintiffs complaint presents a federal question over which the district courts have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Where state officials have no intention of enforcing state law against a plaintiff, a suit against a private entity cannot be considered a suit “for relief from state regulation” within the meaning of Shaw.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over an action seeking to enjoin state enforcement on the ground that federal law preempts the state law.

Larsen v. Cigna Healthcare Mid-Atlantic, Inc. · filed 2002-08-02

Therefore, because CIGNA’s removal action essentially ... seeks to enjoin the enforcement of the Commissioner’s order on federal preemption grounds, this Court has jurisdiction over the case.

Section 1331 permits an equitable action to prevent state officials from enforcing state regulation that interferes with federal rights under the FAA.

Valley View Health Care, Inc. v. Chapman · filed 2014-01-16

This Court does not view plaintiffs to use the FAA or Supremacy Clause as the toe hold for subject matter jurisdiction. As discussed directly below, plaintiffs challenge the Department’s interference of federal rights created under the FAA and which conflict with state law. Such an attempt to enforce federal rights opens this Court’s doors to plaintiffs.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a suit to enjoin a state court from exercising jurisdiction contrary to federal law.

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah v. Lawrence · filed 2017-08-25

If a suit to enjoin a tribe from exercising jurisdiction contrary to federal law is an action “arising under” federal law, then so is a suit to enjoin a State from exercising jurisdiction contrary to federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a tribe’s suit to enjoin state-court proceedings that it claims federal law precludes.

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah v. Lawrence · filed 2017-11-07

We fail to see how we can distinguish these Supreme Court precedents from the case before us with respect to federal-court jurisdiction. If a suit to enjoin a tribe from exercising jurisdiction contrary to federal law is an action “arising under” federal law, then so is a suit to enjoin a State from exercising jurisdiction contrary to federal law.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a regulated entity’s declaratory claim against state officials that a state regulation is federally preempted, even when federal law arises as a defense.

Cameron · filed 2025-12-04

However, the Supreme Court has recognized a limited exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule: a complaint for declaratory relief arises under federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when a regulated entity seeks a declaration against state officials that a state regulation is federally preempted.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because PREP Act immunity may provide an affirmative defense.

Dupervil v. Alliance Health Operations, LLC · filed 2021-02-02

But this only shows that Defendants may have an affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s claims, not that Plaintiff’s claims are affirmatively premised on, or on their face necessarily require resolution of, the PREP Act. ... Accordingly, the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and thus, removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) was improper.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction through complete preemption when Congress intended to displace a state-law cause of action and provided a substitute cause of action; the PREP Act does not meet that test.

Golbad v. GHC of Canoga Park, LLC · filed 2021-05-04

In the Ninth Circuit, “complete preemption for purposes of federal jurisdiction under § 1331 exists when Congress: (1) intended to displace a state-law cause of action, and (2) provided a substitute cause of action.” Id. (citing Hansen v. Grp. Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018)). And, simply put, the PREP Act does not satisfy the Ninth Circuit’s two-part complete preemption test.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim when PREP Act immunity arises only as a defense rather than a necessary element of the claim.

Lozano v. Southeast SNF LLC d/b/a Southeast Nursing & Rehabilitation Center · filed 2021-04-12

Because PREP Act immunity is a defense that must be pled in an answer or asserted in a motion to dismiss, it is not necessarily raised as a claim or element in Plaintiffs’ negligence cases.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law care claims based on the PREP Act.

The Estate of Bernice Deshields v. Interfaith Medical Center · filed 2023-03-03

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the PREP Act does not confer federal question jurisdiction, warranting remand.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that a towing company wrongfully sold a car when the plaintiff identifies no federal law the company violated.

Higgins v. Rigano's Towing · filed 2021-05-24

Although Higgins invokes this Court’s federal question jurisdiction, he has failed to state what law or statute the defendant allegedly violated. He complains that the defendant wrongfully sold Higgins’ car. However, such a claim does not present a valid federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only a violation of state law.

KELLY v. BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES · filed 2021-05-24

He alleges that the Bureau of Motor Vehicles violated Indiana state law, see id., and this does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims concerning motor vehicle defects when Congress has not completely preempted those claims.

Farkas v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. · filed 2000-09-22

In view of this analysis the Court must conclude that Plaintiffs complaint presents no question which arises under federal law for the purposes of conferring jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims through complete preemption, but the Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not completely preempt those claims.

In Re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Tires Products Liability Litigation · filed 2003-04-11

If so, the claims are deemed to arise under federal law, thus supplying federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... For these reasons, we hold, consistent with nearly every other court deciding the issue, that the Safety Act does not completely preempt the plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction on removal only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint asserts a federal cause of action; an intervenor’s claims cannot supply it.

Oriska Corporation v. Willoughby Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC · filed 2021-05-27

For removal based on fed- eral question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “jurisdiction exists only when the plaintiff’s own cause of action is based on federal law as demonstrated on the face of a well- pleaded complaint.” ... This court does not have jurisdiction over the removed Nassau County Action. The operative Amended Complaint asserts only one state law cause of action for breach of contract, which is not preempted by federal law, and the voluntariness principal bars removal by parties introduced through intervention.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a removed action when the operative complaint asserts only a state-law claim, even if an intervenor raises federal issues.

Bay Park Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC v. Philipson · filed 2021-05-27

This court does not have jurisdiction over the removed Nassau County Action. The operative Amended Complaint asserts only one state law cause of action for breach of contract, which is not preempted by federal law, and the voluntariness principal bars removal by parties introduced through intervention.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the operative complaint asserts only a state-law breach-of-contract claim that federal law does not completely preempt.

Hodge v. All American School Bus Corp. · filed 2021-05-27

This court does not have jurisdiction over the removed Nassau County Action. The operative Amended Complaint asserts only one state law cause of action for breach of contract, which is not preempted by federal law, and the voluntariness principal bars removal by parties introduced through intervention.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction over a removed action whose operative complaint asserts only an unpreempted state-law breach-of-contract claim.

Percy v. P & H Painting Inc · filed 2021-05-27

This court does not have jurisdiction over the removed Nassau County Action. The operative Amended Complaint asserts only one state law cause of action for breach of contract, which is not preempted by federal law, and the voluntariness principal bars removal by parties introduced through intervention.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the operative complaint asserts only an unpreempted state-law claim.

Percy v. I Grace Co · filed 2021-05-27

This court does not have jurisdiction over the removed Nassau County Action. The operative Amended Complaint asserts only one state law cause of action for breach of contract, which is not preempted by federal law, and the voluntariness principal bars removal by parties introduced through intervention.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim on the face of the plaintiff’s operative complaint, unless federal law completely preempts the state-law claim.

Hodge v. Cuomo · filed 2021-05-27

This court does not have jurisdiction over the removed Nassau County Action. The operative Amended Complaint asserts only one state law cause of action for breach of contract, which is not preempted by federal law, and the voluntariness principal bars removal by parties introduced through intervention.

A removed action lacks federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 when the plaintiff’s operative complaint states only a state-law claim that federal law does not completely preempt.

Oriska Corporation v. Nassau Operating Co, LLC · filed 2021-05-27

This court does not have jurisdiction over the removed Nassau County Action. The operative Amended Complaint asserts only one state law cause of action for breach of contract, which is not preempted by federal law, and the voluntariness principal bars removal by parties introduced through intervention.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a removed action only when the plaintiff’s operative well-pleaded complaint presents a federal claim, including a state claim completely preempted by federal law.

Percy v. Oriska Corp General Contracting · filed 2021-05-27

This court does not have jurisdiction over the removed Nassau County Action. The operative Amended Complaint asserts only one state law cause of action for breach of contract, which is not preempted by federal law, and the voluntariness principal bars removal by parties introduced through intervention.

Section 1331 supports removal only when the operative well-pleaded complaint presents a federal claim or a state-law claim completely preempted by federal law; an intervenor’s pleading cannot supply federal-question jurisdiction.

Percy v. S & E Azrlliant P C · filed 2021-05-27

For removal based on fed- eral question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “jurisdiction exists only when the plaintiff’s own cause of action is based on federal law as demonstrated on the face of a well- pleaded complaint.” ... This court does not have jurisdiction over the removed Nassau County Action. The operative Amended Complaint asserts only one state law cause of action for breach of contract, which is not preempted by federal law, and the voluntariness principal bars removal by parties introduced through intervention.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction depends on the claims in the operative complaint; an amended complaint that states no federal cause of action does not establish it.

Collins v. Smith · filed 2023-03-21

Collins’ amended complaint does not state any federal cause of action.

A plaintiff cannot defeat § 1331 removal through artful pleading when the state complaint’s factual allegations necessarily present a federal claim.

Reid v. Walsh · filed 1985-09-20

After a careful inspection of the two removed petitions, the Court now finds that a “federal claim is necessarily presented”, although the plaintiffs have stated their causes of action exclusively in terms of state law. Since a federal claim was stated based upon the allegations of the removed petitions, the Court must deny both motions to remand.

Section 1331 supports removal when the plaintiff explicitly invokes federal law as a basis for a state-law cause of action.

Olguin v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company · filed 1984-08-21

Olguin explicitly invoked federal law in this cause of action and it was therefore removable, if not under section 301, then under the general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982).

When federal law completely preempts the state law supporting a complaint, the action arises under federal law and is removable under Section 1331 regardless of how the complaint is framed.

Gunter v. Ago Intern. BV · filed 1981-12-03

Regardless of the way the complaint is framed, if the state law upon which the plaintiff relies is entirely preempted by federal law, the case is removable. ... When the state law is preempted by federal law, then federal law provides the only basis for the plaintiff to gain relief, thereby causing the action to arise under federal law.

A state-law complaint may support § 1331 removal when its true nature is federal, and a court may examine the claim’s background to determine federal-question jurisdiction.

Brooks v. Solomon Co. · filed 1982-06-29

It is an established principle that where the nature of the claim asserted in the complaint is federal, the suit may be removed, irrespective of whether it is so characterized by the plaintiff in his complaint. ... Where a question of federal status may be involved, a federal court may look beyond the complaint to the background of the plaintiff’s claim to determine whether federal question jurisdiction exists.

A complaint facially pleaded under state law arises under federal law for Section 1331 purposes when ERISA completely preempts the state law and exclusively governs the asserted rights and duties.

Calhoon v. Bonnabel · filed 1982-07-08

The Court finds that petitioners properly removed this action from state court, and therefore denies respondents’ motion to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447. Respondents’ complaint, though facially stating a claim under a New York labor statute, is predicated on rights and duties governed exclusively by ERISA. Since ERISA has preempted all laws relating to any employee benefit plan, and since respondents here are seeking to recover overdue payments to employee benefit funds, the controversy “arises under” federal law within the intendment of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441.

Section 1331 removal jurisdiction is absent when a state claim is not a disguised federal claim and federal law appears only as a defense.

Nolan v. Otis Elevator Co. · filed 1982-08-12

Under all these circumstances, the court cannot say that the complaint asserts a federal claim disguised as a state claim by artful pleading. Whether the asserted state claim has any validity is a matter of defense. ... The conclusion is that the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction, and so must be remanded to Superior Court of New Jersey as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Section 1331 removal jurisdiction requires a well-pleaded state claim containing a necessary substantial federal question or a claim that is really federal law; an ordinary federal defense does not suffice.

Adkins v. General Motors Corp. · filed 1984-01-20

original federal jurisdiction is unavailable unless it appears that some substantial, disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded state claims, or that one or the other claims is “really” one of federal law.

Section 1331 does not permit removal on a complete-preemption theory when federal law does not wholly supersede the plaintiff's state-law claims.

Adolph Coors Co. v. Sickler · filed 1985-05-08

Defendants argue that removal is also appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. They base this contention on the thesis that federal law has preempted plaintiffs' action in its entirety and displaced it with a federal remedy. This argument is identical to that discussed above. It fails because plaintiffs' state tort law claims are not preempted in their entirety, and plaintiffs, as masters of their complaint, may elect to fore-go federal remedies when these remedies do not wholly supersede state law.

A state-law claim necessarily arises under federal law when federal law completely preempts that claim and replaces it with a federal cause of action, even if the complaint omits the federal statutory basis.

Shiffler v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States · filed 1985-05-28

In such circumstances the state law claim alleged by the plaintiff has been preempted by federal law and cannot form a basis for relief. At the same time, federal law provides a cause of action which replaces the preempted state law claim. Therefore, the claim necessarily arises under federal law despite the failure of the complaint to identify the federal statutory basis for suit.

Section 1331 supports removal when the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily turns on federal law, and a plaintiff cannot defeat jurisdiction by artfully pleading the federal dispute as a state-law claim.

Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum, Inc. · filed 1986-01-10

An action may “arise under” a law of the United States if the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily turns on construction of federal law. ... A plaintiff will not be allowed to conceal the true nature of a complaint through “artful pleading.” ... Accordingly, the removal of the action to federal court was proper.

Section 1331 supports removal when the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily turns on federal law, and a plaintiff cannot defeat jurisdiction by artfully pleading the federal dispute as a state-law claim.

Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum, Inc. · filed 1986-02-21

An action may “arise under” a law of the United States if the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily turns on construction of federal law. ... A plaintiff will not be allowed to conceal the true nature of a complaint through “artful pleading.” ... Accordingly, the removal of the action to federal court was proper.

Under Section 1331, complete preemption permits removal only when federal law both supplies a replacement federal remedy and preempts the state-law cause of action.

Williams v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. · filed 1986-04-07

If federal law displaces state law, but does not supplant it with an analogous federal remedy, then the complaint simply does not “arise under” federal law as required' by 29 U.S.C. § 1331. Preemption, in such a case, is a purely defensive allegation. But if federal law does provide a remedy, and the state law cause of action is also preempted, the complaint is susceptible to recharacterization as a federal cause of action permitting federal jurisdiction.

A claim falls within Section 1331 when federal law completely occupies the field so that the claim necessarily arises under federal rather than state law.

Graf v. Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company, an Illinois Corporation · filed 1986-05-21

But a statute that took over the whole field, with the result that the claim necessarily arose under federal rather than state law, would ... place the case within the federal-question jurisdiction. ... So by either route — federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or pendent jurisdiction — the district judge was authorized to decide whether Graf’s claim of wrongful discharge is barred by the Railway Labor Act; and we must now consider whether he decided correctly.