28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 405(h) prevents a Social Security claimant from relying on § 1331 when the Act supplies both standing and the substantive basis for the claim.

Breault v. Heckler · filed 1984-06-29

Thus jurisdiction for this action cannot be premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a federal question.

Section 1331 permits a prospective constitutional challenge to Medicare Part B procedures despite 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) when the plaintiffs do not seek benefits and no judicial-review route exists under § 405(g).

David v. Heckler · filed 1984-07-11

Since plaintiffs allege constitutional due process claims, general federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, would be appropriate were it not for the apparent bar created by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h). ... Doubt as to whether this type of claim should be construed as barred by section 205(h), 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), should be resolved in favor of finding jurisdiction since the availability of judicial review for constitutional questions is generally “presumed.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over actions seeking to recover claims under Title II of the Social Security Act.

Tustin v. Heckler · filed 1984-07-12

While it is clear that no federal question jurisdiction exists as to actions to recover any claim under Title II of the Act, ... jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) exists only as to the named plaintiffs of any class created, except where the unnamed plaintiffs can be shown to have exhausted their administrative appeals.

Section 1331 does not provide a broader route for judicial review of a Social Security challenge that is reviewable under Section 405(g).

William F. GARNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appelle · filed 1990-06-12

In addition to asserting jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to raise this claim, Garnett attempted to gain broader judicial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1361, but we affirm on the reasoning of the district court that jurisdiction does not arise under those statutes.

Section 1331 permits review of a Medicare Part B challenge to the validity of the agency's reimbursement criteria or method, but not a challenge merely asserting that a carrier misapplied valid rules to determine an amount.

Downtown Medical Center v. Bowen · filed 1991-09-10

Erika and Michigan Academy occupy opposite ends of a jurisdictional continuum. ... On the Erika end are nonreviewable challenges to amount determinations, and on the Michigan Academy end are reviewable challenges to the method of arriving at amount determinations. ... This argument does not concern the amount of particular claims but, rather, the method the hearing officer used in denying them. ... Thus the district court had jurisdiction over this aspect of CHC's action.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over Rehabilitation Act claims against the Social Security Administration because those claims do not arise under the Social Security Act and are not barred by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).

J.L., and K.P., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Share Ourselves v. SOCIAL SECURITY… · filed 1992-07-15

Section 405(h) provides that jurisdiction over cases "arising under" the Social Security Act can be had only upon the terms described in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Because plaintiffs' claims are predicated on the Rehabilitation Act, they do not "arise under" the Social Security Act. Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was not precluded, nor was it precluded under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus).

Section 1331 jurisdiction over Rehabilitation Act claims against the Social Security Administration is not barred by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) when the claims do not arise under the Social Security Act.

J.L. v. Social Security Administration · filed 1992-07-15

Because plaintiffs’ claims are predicated on the Rehabilitation Act, they do not “arise under” the Social Security Act. Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was not precluded, nor was it precluded under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus).

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction over claims that state disability officials, acting under color of state law, violated federal law or the Constitution; the Social Security Act’s jurisdictional bar for suits against federal officials does not reach those state officials.

Schoolcraft v. Sullivan · filed 1992-10-09

Claimants allege that these state officers in their official capacities, acting under color of state law, violated federal law and the United States Constitution by failing to apply the proper criteria. On this basis plaintiffs properly assert federal question jurisdiction under section 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim against the Social Security Commissioner arising under the Social Security Act when 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) bars that route.

LAURIE Q. v. Callahan · filed 1997-05-22

Furthermore, the gravamen of plaintiffs’ complaint against the Commissioner is that the SSA failed to follow its own representative payee standards. This is clearly a claim “arising under” sub-chapter II of the SSA. Thus, jurisdiction may not lie under section 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over Social Security Act claims that must first proceed through the agency before judicial review.

Corliss v. Barnhart · filed 2002-09-30

Corliss’ asserted basis for jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is unavailing. ... The plaintiffs claims must first be channeled through the administrative agency and, if after a final agency decision Corliss is yet aggrieved, she has the right then to pursue her claims in federal court.

Section 1331 does not provide subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under the Social Security Act.

Lowry v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2004-05-13

We also conclude that the district court properly declined to exercise subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Lowry’s claims “arise under” the Social Security Act.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a Social Security Act claim when the claimant otherwise has no means of judicial review.

Binder & Binder Pc v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Docket No. 05-6794-Cv · filed 2007-03-27

Specifically, we now hold that Binder may invoke federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because, were such jurisdiction unavailable, it would be unable to obtain any judicial review of its claims under the Act.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for claims arising under Title II of the Social Security Act.

Aurora Chi. Lakeshore Hosp. v. Azar · filed 2018-12-21

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is not available to plaintiffs bringing claims arising under Title II of the Social Security Act.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over claims arising under the Social Security Act because that Act precludes federal-question jurisdiction, including for challenges to agency inaction.

Duarte v. Saul · filed 2021-04-16

The Court also rejects Duarte’s claim that the Court can consider her claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal jurisdiction is precluded by the Social Security Act. ... The Court is not persuaded by Duarte’s argument that the outcome differs in a challenge to inaction rather than action by the Commissioner.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a Social Security Act claim when a timely action under § 405(g) was available.

Cartwright v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-17

Although the Second Circuit held that ... judicial review is available under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 where “there are no alternative means to review a federal claim arising under the Social Security Act,” id., there was a mechanism for relief here—namely, a timely-filed action challenging the ALJ’s Decision.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim arising under the Social Security Act when § 405(h) bars that jurisdiction.

FOX v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-01-21

The Court finds that Mr. Fox's claim arises under the Social Security Act, and that § 1331 does not provide a basis for the Court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under the Social Security Act.

Rosetti v. Sullivan · filed 1992-03-31

As plaintiffs claims sub judiee clearly arise under the Social Security Act, federal question jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331 is inappropriate.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction to review a claim arising under the Social Security Act when § 405(h) bars that review.

Thomas v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-20

As discussed, the Social Security Act does not provide for judicial review of Thomas’s claims. And as clearly stated above, § 1331 does not give the Court jurisdiction to review Thomas’s claims.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to review a Social Security benefits decision.

Lopez v. United States of America · filed 2023-09-28

The general federal jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, does not establish subject matter jurisdiction for an action challenging the Commissioner’s decision in a Social Security benefits case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under the Social Security Act that must proceed through § 405(g).

Johnson v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-05-06

Nor can Plaintiff establish this Court’s jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 702 (right of action provided in the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)) or 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), as he attempts to do.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim arising from the denial of Social Security benefits when 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) bars it.

Anderson v. Sheely · filed 2024-07-03

Additionally, it is readily apparent that Anderson’s claims arise from the denial of his application for Social Security disability insurance benefits; therefore, § 405(h) bars federal question jurisdiction over his Title VI claim.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over claims arising under Title II of the Social Security Act against the United States, the Commissioner, or their officers or employees.

Stringer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-11

Section 405(h) forbids any action against the United States, the Commissioner, or any of their officers or employees under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal-question jurisdiction) or § 1346 (United States as defendant) “to recover on any claim arising under” Title II of the Social Security Act.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over Social Security benefit claims barred from that route by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).

Dunbar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-10

Given the clear language of § ... 405(h), federal question jurisdiction is not available in this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for review of Social Security Act benefit determinations; review proceeds under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and (h).

Coffin v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare · filed 1975-08-08

Salfi seems to preclude “federal question” jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331) in Social Security Act cases and require that review be carried out in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), (h).

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a Medicare provider’s claim arising under the Social Security Act when § 405(h) bars it, even if the provider alleges a constitutional violation.

Northwest Healthcare, L.P. v. Sullivan · filed 1992-03-30

Section 405(h) expressly precludes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ... or 28 U.S.C. § 1346. The fact that Bayou Glen is claiming a constitutional violation does not change that result.

The Medicare Act’s exclusive review scheme precludes general federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 over decisions of the Provider Reimbursement Review Board.

Cambridge Hosp. Ass'n, Inc. v. Bowen · filed 1986-03-04

The Medicare Act specifically precludes judicial review of PRRB decisions under the general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or the mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1336.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over Medicare provider-reimbursement disputes because the Medicare Act supplies the exclusive route for judicial review of those claims.

Alexandria Hospital v. Bowen · filed 1986-03-31

The court will first consider the hospitals’ claim that this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Case law makes clear that this court does not have jurisdiction over the hospitals’ claims under the general federal jurisdiction statute. ... Since “[fjederal jurisdiction over provider reimbursement disputes is limited to that specifically supplied by the Medicare Act itself ... the hospitals cannot get jurisdiction in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 405(h) does not bar Section 1331 jurisdiction over a due-process damages claim seeking compensation for constitutional violations rather than restoration of Social Security disability benefits.

Chilicky v. Schweiker · filed 1986-08-12

Section 405(h) only precludes actions "arising under" Title II of the Social Security Disability Act, a section 405(g)-type action for disability benefits, from being instituted prior to exhaustion of administrative remedies. ... Appellants do not pursue their remaining claim in an effort to have their disability benefits restored; this has been done. Rather, they seek damages for constitutional violations purportedly committed by appellees in terminating appellants' disability benefits. Consequently, this action does not arise under Title II of the Social Security Disability Act and is thus not barred by section 405(h). The district court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 over appellants' due process claim against all appellees.

Section 1331 may provide judicial review of Medicare claims that lie outside a Part B carrier hearing officer's statutory jurisdiction, including challenges to the legality of agency policies.

Medical Fund-Philadelphia Geriatric Center v. Heckler · filed 1986-11-24

In light of Michigan Academy, however, Ringer can no longer be interpreted to exclude Medicare claims from jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 if those claims lie outside the jurisdiction of carrier hearing officers.

Section 1331 is unavailable for constitutional challenges arising from termination decisions under the Social Security Act because § 405(h) requires the Act’s review route.

Gruter Foundation, Inc. v. Bowen · filed 1986-12-22

Clearly, it has been decided that federal question jurisdiction as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is not available to challenge even Constitutional claims arising from termination decisions under the Social Security Act.

The Medicare Act's bar on review of low-dollar Part A benefit amounts does not preclude Section 1331 jurisdiction over a challenge to the procedures by which the Secretary reopens and determines those claims.

McCuin v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1987-04-14

Section 1395ff bars judicial review for challenges to the amount of Medicare Part A determinations. We find, however, that it does not prohibit either mandamus or federal question jurisdiction for challenges to the procedures by which the Secretary arrives at such determinations.

Section 405(h) makes Section 405(g) the exclusive avenue for judicial review of Medicare claims arising under the Medicare Act and bars Section 1331 jurisdiction over those claims.

Papendick v. Bowen · filed 1987-04-28

This Court believes that plaintiff’s claim clearly arises under the Medicare Act. Plaintiff’s status as a Medicare provider, the sanctions at issues, and the procedures used to impose those sanctions are all based upon the Medicare Act. Since plaintiff’s claim arises under the Medicare Act, this Court cannot have jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331.

Section 405(h), as incorporated into the Medicare Act, bars Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction over provider claims subject to Medicare's specific review scheme.

Hospital Ass'n v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1987-06-08

Federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982), is barred by section 205 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) (Supp. III 1985), which is made applicable to the Medicare Act by 42 U.S.C. § 1395Ü (Supp. III 1985).

General Section 1331 jurisdiction is barred for Social Security claims, whose district-court jurisdiction must instead come through Section 405(g).

20 soc.sec.rep.ser. 60, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 17,696 Claire McDonald v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1987-12-08

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is barred by section 405(b).

Section 1331 jurisdiction is precluded for Medicare agency decisions when the Social Security Act makes its specific review procedure exclusive and the claim does not qualify for waiver of exhaustion.

Landmark Medical Center v. Bowen · filed 1988-07-07

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is precluded by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), which makes 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) the exclusive form of judicial review of agency decisions. ... this is not a case which raises claims “wholly collateral to the substantive issues,” thereby permitting waiver of the exhaustion of administrative remedies rule.

Section 405(h) of the Social Security Act bars Section 1331 jurisdiction over claims arising under the Act, so judicial review must rest on the Act's specific review provisions.

27 soc.sec.rep.ser. 313, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 14915a Charles Briggs v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D. · filed 1989-09-25

... As is clear from prior cases and from the Social Security Act itself, federal courts cannot assume jurisdiction over controversies concerning the interpretation of the entitlement provisions of the Social Security Act under the general federal question statute; accordingly, we must determine whether the terms of §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) permit the exercise of jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 does not permit premature review of a Medicare Part B amount determination when administrative remedies remain unexhausted and the challenge concerns a carrier’s application of valid rules rather than the validity of agency rules.

Millsaps v. Sullivan · filed 1990-01-19

The plaintiff claims that jurisdiction is proper pursuant to either 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) or 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that this situation does not require the complete exhaustion of his administrative remedies. ... Because Dr. Millsaps is essentially disputing only the carrier’s application of the Medicare statute and regulations in determining whether PTCA procedures can be reimbursed using the global fee concept rather than the validity of the Medicare rules and regulations, his method challenge is actually a challenge to an amount determination and therefore is not reviewable. ... For the reasons set out above, the Court hereby finds that the plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies, that such exhaustion is not futile, and the challenges involve an amount determination and therefore is not reviewable.

The Social Security Act’s Section 205(h) bars Section 1331 jurisdiction over claims to recover benefits, but not a collateral procedural challenge to the wage-recording rule and the agencies’ compliance with statutory rulemaking requirements.

National Committee to Preserve Social Security v. Bowen · filed 1990-03-09

Section 205(h) provides that no action shall be brought against the United States, or any official, under Section 1331 to recover any claim arising under the Act. ... This action does not arise from a claim for additional benefits; rather it stems from plaintiff’s ultimate goal of “vindicating] an interest in procedural regularity.” ... Plaintiff’s entire argument rests on challenging the rule used to determine an employee’s Social Security benefits and the procedure under which that rule was promulgated. Therefore Section 205(h), by its own terms, is inapplicable to this proceeding as it neither involves any findings of fact nor any decision by the Secretary on a claim for benefits.

Social Security Act Section 405(h) precludes Section 1331 review of beneficiaries’ claims arising under the Act, but does not bar federal jurisdiction over attorneys’ fee claims when attorneys have no right to a Section 405(g) hearing and allege that the agency exceeded its authority.

Guadamuz v. Bowen · filed 1988-10-18

The Supreme Court held that section 405(h) precluded subject matter jurisdiction over these claims based on its express preclusion of jurisdiction under ... U.S.C. §§ ... and 1346. ... Under Salfi, 405(h) would preclude general federal question jurisdiction or any other means of judicial review except as provided for in the Act. ... At least the named attorneys in this putative class action are not jurisdic-tionally barred from asserting their claims. First, subsections 405(g) and (h) do not apply to them or their claims. ... The plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the Secretary’s interpretation and application of section 406 exceeded her legal authority. We hold, under Ness, that the district court and this court have jurisdiction over the named attorneys’ claims.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over negligence damages claims against the Social Security Administration arising from its processing of benefits claims because 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) bars such suits.

Marks v. United States Social Security Administration · filed 1995-11-02

It appears that the SSA cannot be a Defendant in a tort action for negligence brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1988). The Social Security Act precludes tort claims against federal entities. Section § 405(h) provides: “No action against the United States, the Commissioner of Social Security, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under section 1331 or 1346 of Title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this subchapter.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a Social Security attorney-fee claim barred from judicial review by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).

Buchanan v. Apfel · filed 1999-07-30

Section 405(h) unequivocally precludes subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331: ... Accordingly, because Buchanan’s claim cannot be characterized as a constitutional claim, the Michigan Academy exception does not apply, and his claim is precluded by § 405(h).

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to the Social Security representative-fee scheme when Congress has not clearly foreclosed judicial review.

Cordoba v. Massanari · filed 2001-07-20

Over this constitutional claim, we are persuaded that the district court had general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction to review Social Security benefits decisions because 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) excludes that jurisdiction and review proceeds under the Social Security Act.

Yi v. Social Security Administration · filed 2015-01-14

In the Social Security context. Congress has explicitly stated that the general federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, does not establish subject matter jurisdiction for an action challenging a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), and instead has allowed such jurisdiction only alter the Commissioner has rendered a final decision on an SSI or SSDI entitlement determination: ... Thus, plaintiffs must exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing a claim in federal court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for claims seeking to recover Social Security Title II benefits because § 405(h) bars those actions.

WALTERS v. SAUL · filed 2019-07-01

Based on the clear expression of intent by Congress, the Court is not able to provide relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a claim seeking review of a Social Security benefits determination because 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) bars that route.

ESTATE OF BURHAN PSTTASH v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2022-12-12

Thus, § 1331 cannot serve as the basis for jurisdiction over this claim, which essentially seeks review of a determination by the Social Security Administration.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over Social Security claims when the Social Security Act precludes it.

Duarte v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-04-03

Similarly, federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is precluded by 42 U.S.C. § 205(h).

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over an SSI claim against the Commissioner when the Social Security Act makes its review process exclusive.

Comack v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-11-08

As to § 1331, the Social Security Act pro- vides that no action against the Commissioner may be brought pur- suant to § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over challenges to Social Security benefit decisions.

Johnson v. Social Security · filed 2024-12-09

In the Social Security context, Congress has explicitly stated that general federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, does not establish subject matter jurisdiction for an action challenging a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), and instead has allowed such jurisdiction only after the Commissioner has rendered a final decision on a disability entitlement determination: ... 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over claims arising under the Social Security Act because 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) bars that route to judicial review.

McFadden v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-10

The Social Security Act contains an exclusive remedy provision that expressly bars claimants from bringing actions relating to Social Security claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for an action challenging a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.

Grimes v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-07-30

In the Social Security context, Congress has explicitly stated that general federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, does not establish subject matter jurisdiction for an action challenging a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), and instead has allowed such jurisdiction only after the Commissioner has rendered a final decision on a disability entitlement determination: ... Thus, plaintiffs must exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing a claim in federal court.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over claims arising under the Social Security Act when § 405(h) requires review through § 405(g).

Winters v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-09

Section 405(h) precludes subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1331 in such a case, regardless of whether the ... individual challenges the agency’s denial on constitutional grounds, see Weinberger, 422 U.S. at 760–61, FTCA-based grounds for wrongful disability determinations, see Hooker, 858 F.2d at 529–30, or Bivens-based due-process grounds for the wrongful termination of benefits, see Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 413 (1988).

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to benefit-termination procedures when the Social Security Act provides no adequate route to judicial review.

Cospito v. Califano · filed 1981-02-05

Because plaintiffs are challenging the manner in which they were deprived of benefits, seeking to assure that procedures comporting with due process be followed by the Secretary in determining TPH’s continued participation in the Medicare/Medicaid programs, I find federal-question jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a claim arising under the Social Security Act when 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) bars that route.

Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois v. Harris · filed 1982-08-23

This Court is without jurisdiction to entertain this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to review this Social Security benefits denial in light of 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).

DeLeon v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1987-01-20

Plaintiff’s allegation of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is also unavailing. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).

Section 1331 permits a Social Security claimant’s representative to seek judicial review of a fee claim when no other avenue of review is available.

Binder & Binder, P.C. v. Astrue · filed 2012-01-25

Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) does not permit a district court to intervene prematurely in an administrative proceeding merely because a federal constitutional or statutory issue is raised; the party generally must exhaust the prescribed administrative process.

School District of Saginaw v. United States Department of Health, Education, & Welfare · filed 1977-03-09(a)

Plaintiffs seek to avoid the jurisdictional scheme of Title VI by asserting that this Court should assume jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), which sets forth the general grant of jurisdiction in the District Court over suits involving a federal question. ... Instead, a party to an administrative proceeding is generally precluded from seeking either judicial review or judicial intervention until such party has first exhausted his administrative remedies.

Section 1331 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust a state or municipal administrative presentment remedy before seeking federal relief against a municipality.

Spencer v. TOWN OF WESTERLY, RI, ETC. · filed 1977-04-20

It is established in this district that plaintiffs need not exhaust such administrative remedies prior to seeking relief against municipalities under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits a pre-enforcement challenge to federal agency authority despite the plaintiff’s failure to complete the threatened administrative process.

Junior College Dist. of St. Louis v. Califano · filed 1978-09-20

Defendants contend, in the motion to dismiss, that plaintiff has failed to state a claim because defendant HEW has authority to prohibit discrimination in employment and further asserts that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking because plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative procedures. This latter contention is without merit.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction to review an Interior Department decision after the claimant exhausts the administrative remedies required to make that decision final.

Doria Mining And Engineering Corporation v. Rogers Morton · filed 1979-12-17(a)

The district courts have jurisdiction to review administrative decisions of the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... When the regulations governing an administrative decision-making body require that a party exhaust its administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial review, the party must do so before the administrative decision may be considered final and the district court may properly assume jurisdiction. ... When Doria lost before the IBLA, therefore, it had exhausted its administrative remedies, and the IBLA determination constituted the Secretary of the Interior's final decision to deny the validity of Doria's purported placer mining claims. The district court thus had jurisdiction to review the IBLA judgment.

A direct constitutional challenge to a federal statute may proceed under Section 1331 without exhausting administrative remedies because administrative tribunals lack authority to decide constitutional issues.

Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n v. Andrus · filed 1980-01-21

This action, however, is a direct constitutional challenge to Title V of the act. There is no need to exhaust administrative remedies since neither administrative law judges nor review boards have jurisdiction to decide constitutional issues. ... Therefore, this action has been properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for this court to decide the constitutionality of the act.

A § 1331 constitutional-tort damages claim need not exhaust an administrative remedy that excludes tort claims and cannot award damages.

Goar v. Civiletti · filed 1982-09-13

A long line of Supreme Court cases recognizes the rule that a party need not exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a claim to federal court when the administrative remedy is inadequate or cannot provide the relief requested. ... This rule applies to the case before us.

Section 1331(a) does not permit a district court to intervene in an ongoing NLRB proceeding merely because a constitutional issue is raised when Congress requires exhaustion and places review of final Board orders in the courts of appeals.

Centra, Inc. v. Hirsch · filed 1985-04-11(a)

However, by statutory design, Congress has vested exclusive review of final NLRB orders with the courts of appeals. Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. ... § 1331(a) does not authorize a district court to intervene in administrative proceedings whenever an issue is raised which bears on the Constitution. Instead, a party to an administrative proceeding is precluded from seeking judicial review until the party has exhausted administrative remedies.

Section 1331 permits a district court to determine a tribal court's jurisdiction only after the available tribal-court remedies have been exhausted.

Williams v. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Pyramid Lake Reservation · filed 1986-01-08

The Supreme Court held that the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to determine the jurisdiction of the tribal court, but only after tribal court remedies had been exhausted. ... Accordingly, until plaintiffs have exhausted the remedies available to them in the Tribal Court system, it would be premature for this Court to consider any relief.

Section 1331 does not supply district-court jurisdiction to review an immigration matter when the claimant has failed to exhaust the administrative remedies required by the immigration laws.

Gallanosa v. United States · filed 1986-02-27

The Gallanosas alleged jurisdiction based upon the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1329, and 5 U.S.C. Secs. 701-706. ... On the government's renewed challenge to district court jurisdiction on this appeal, we conclude that there was no jurisdictional basis for the order entered.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a federal disability-discrimination claim is not defeated by failure to exhaust an administrative process that does not apply or would be futile and inadequate.

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Belleville Public School District No. 118 · filed 1987-11-06

That being the case, the Court finds that the plaintiff is not required to exhaust his administrative remedies, and that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331, NEPA, and the APA together provide an independent jurisdictional basis for requiring an agency to comply with NEPA without first exhausting a separate pesticide statute’s administrative remedies.

Defenders of Wildlife v. Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency · filed 1988-04-11

Faced with a similar suit against a different agency, we concluded that a plaintiff was not obliged to exhaust his statutory remedies, because 28 U.S.C. § 1331, NEPA, and section 10(a) of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702, combined to create an independent ground of jurisdiction. ... On that basis, we reach the merits in this case.

A federal court should ordinarily defer exercising Section 1331 jurisdiction over a challenge also subject to tribal jurisdiction until the claimant exhausts available tribal remedies.

Tillett v. Lujan · filed 1991-04-23

Therefore, as a matter of comity, a federal court should not exercise jurisdiction over cases arising under its federal question or diversity jurisdiction, if those cases are also subject to tribal jurisdiction, until the parties have exhausted their tribal remedies.

A federal prisoner pursuing a Section 1331 or Bivens challenge to conditions of confinement must first exhaust available administrative remedies.

Sun v. Warden A. Belaski · filed 1991-05-20

A federal prisoner who seeks relief under section 1241 or under section 1331 or Bivens must first exhaust administrative remedies. As the district court held, Sun has not demonstrated that he exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to those of his claims relating to the conditions of his imprisonment. Accordingly, those claims could be dismissed on that ground.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a Medicaid provider’s colorable constitutional and statutory claims collateral to the merits of a termination decision without prior exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Claridge House, Inc. v. United States Department of Health & Human Services · filed 1991-11-12

The Court is satisfied that plaintiff has raised colorable constitutional and statutory claims collateral to the underlying issues of deficiencies in plaintiff’s provision of services to Medicaid-eligible patients and plaintiff’s entitlement to continue participation in the Medicaid program notwithstanding those deficiencies, and therefore the Court does not find defendants’ exhaustion argument well taken.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a Medicare exclusion claim until the claimant exhausts available administrative remedies.

Anderson v. Sullivan · filed 1992-03-13

Therefore, Anderson is compelled to exhaust his administrative remedies before a federal court may exercise general federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1988).

Section 1331 does not permit a Medicare Part B claimant to bypass the Act’s exclusive administrative review process; judicial review requires exhaustion.

Farkas v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan · filed 1992-09-30

No action against the United States, the Secretary, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under section 1331 or 1346 of Title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this sub-chapter. ... This Court finds that by application of the 1986 Medicare Act amendments, review of BCBSM’s decision to place Dr. Farkas on Medicare Prepay: ment Utilization Review is a matter to be resolved in the first instance by resort to the exclusive dispute resolution provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Therefore, the Court determines that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate Dr. Farkas’s claim until he has fully and completely exhausted his administrative remedies, and this ease must, accordingly be dismissed.

Section 1331 permits federal review of whether a tribal court exceeded its jurisdiction, subject to exhaustion of tribal remedies.

Harvey v. Star · filed 1996-09-10

Further, the exhaustion requirement controlling our disposition under § 1331 applies as well to § 1303.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to decide whether a tribal forum exceeds its authority; a court ordinarily waits for tribal remedies to be exhausted, but exhaustion is unnecessary when the tribe plainly lacks regulatory authority over the conduct.

State of Montana Department of Transportation v. King · filed 1999-09-09

The district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 “to determine, as a matter arising under federal law, whether a tribal court has exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction.” ... As a general rule, however, a federal district court should abstain from asserting federal question jurisdiction over claims that are identical to claims pending in tribal court until the tribal court has had a full opportunity to consider the basis for its own jurisdiction. ... In this case, because the Community has no regulatory authority to govern the State’s conduct on land covered by Montana’s main rule, the State was not required to exhaust tribal remedies, whether administrative or judicial.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction to review a tribal court’s finding of tribal jurisdiction after tribal remedies have been exhausted.

Davis v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians · filed 1999-10-22

Once all tribal remedies are exhausted, a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review the tribal court's finding of tribal jurisdiction. ... We do not think that the exhaustion requirement has been satisfied when the absence of tribal appellate review stems from the plaintiff's own failure to adhere to simple deadlines.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a seaman’s claim even when he has not first presented it to the Maritime Administration.

Williams v. American Overseas Marine Corp. · filed 2000-07-10

Because this case falls within 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court clearly has subject matter jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that Plaintiff elected not to present his claim to MARAD.

A Medicare provider generally must exhaust the Medicare administrative review process before a court has federal-question jurisdiction under section 1331.

Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center v. Thompson · filed 2005-10-14

Accordingly, in determining whether federal question jurisdiction is proper, we must first consider whether Michael Reese exhausted that administrative review process.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a Medicare claim before the claimant completes the administrative process required by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).

Power Mobility Coalition v. Leavitt · filed 2005-10-25

From a reading of these cases, in addition to the clear language of § 405(h), this Court concludes that it cannot entertain § 1331 jurisdiction in this case unless and until the plaintiff exhausts its administrative remedies.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims against the FDIC as receiver when the claimant has not exhausted FIRREA’s administrative claims process.

Bhc Interim Funding II, L.P. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation · filed 2012-03-30

BHC’s suggestion that the Court could find a jurisdictional basis in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not alter this conclusion. A district court’s federal question jurisdiction is often limited by the requirement that a plaintiff first exhaust her administrative remedies.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over RLA minor disputes even when the employee has not completed the required arbitration; that failure limits relief but does not remove subject matter jurisdiction.

Emswiler v. CSX Transportation Inc. · filed 2012-07-20

While the RLA clearly precludes the federal courts from granting relief on minor disputes that have not first been brought through the RLA arbitral process, such disputes still raise a question “arising under” federal law, i.e. the RLA.

A non-Indian bringing a federal common law challenge to tribal court jurisdiction under Section 1331 need not exhaust tribal remedies when the tribal court plainly lacks jurisdiction.

Evans v. Shoshone-Bannock Land Use Policy Commission · filed 2013-12-05

“Non-Indians may bring a federal common law cause of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to challenge tribal court jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, the tribal court plainly lacks jurisdiction, and Evans need not exhaust tribal remedies.

Section 1331 does not give a court federal-question jurisdiction over a challenge to a Social Security benefits denial until the claimant exhausts administrative remedies.

Hairston v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMPASS POINTE, MARTINSBURG · filed 2019-04-01

As correctly identified by Magistrate Judge Trumble, the Court cannot assume federal question jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims until after the Plaintiff exhausts his administrative remedies.

Section 1331 generally does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over Medicare claims before administrative exhaustion.

True Health Diagnostics, LLC v. Azar · filed 2019-07-22

Although federal courts have original jurisdiction in actions "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States" ( 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ), absent administrative exhaustion, Medicare cases are generally excluded from this general grant of federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal review of tribal court jurisdiction, but comity requires exhaustion of tribal court remedies before its jurisdiction can be invoked.

Clements v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation · filed 2019-11-15

However, to successfully invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under section 1331, considerations of comity require Plaintiffs first to exhaust their tribal court remedies.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction over a suit seeking to interrupt S.E.C. proceedings subject to a statutory review process.

First Jersey Securities, Inc. v. Securities & Exchange Commission · filed 1982-12-13

The general jurisdictional statutes, and the statutes granting limited jurisdiction in district courts over securities laws violations do not give this court jurisdiction over these claims. The lesson of First Jersey Securities, Inc. is that the procedures established for review of S.E.C. actions deprive this court of jurisdiction over suits that seek to interrupt the agency proceedings.

Section 1331 allows the United States to bring federal-law claims in district court without first exhausting state remedies.

United States v. Lewis County · filed 1999-04-19

The United States need not exhaust state remedies before raising claims arising under federal law in district court.

Section 1331 does not provide authority to award attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party.

American Federation v. Symphony · filed 2000-02-16

The statutory basis for the instant action, Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (1999), and in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, does not provide for attorneys' fees.

Section 1331 may provide subject-matter jurisdiction for a federal claim but does not itself authorize an award of attorney fees.

Citizens Association of Georgetown the Committee of 100 on the Federal City v. Walter E. Washington, Commissioner of the · filed 1976-05-25

Moreover, a private citizen may seek relief in a federal court based on a jurisdictional grant other than section 304, such as 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (which the District Court held to be a head of jurisdiction here but which affords no authority to award attorneys’ fees), or in a state court based on an appropriate jurisdictional grant.

A savings clause may permit a Section 1331 action to remedy statutory violations beyond an environmental citizen-suit provision, but the citizen-suit attorney-fee authorization does not extend to the Section 1331 action.

Save Our Sound Fisheries Ass'n v. Callaway · filed 1977-02-23

One possible approach, reading attorneys’ fees provisions as applying to all suits brought to enforce the statutes, whether premised on the citizen suit provisions, § 1365 and § 1415(g), or otherwise, i. e. § 1331, is firmly foreclosed by the language of citizen suit provisions and their legislative history. ... A savings clause makes possible suits under the Administrative Procedure Act and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to remedy a broad range of illegal actions under the FWPCA and MPRSA; but the normal American rule on attorneys’ fees applies to such suits.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction for a district court to issue interim equitable relief against federal action even when another forum has exclusive review jurisdiction over final personnel orders.

Gilley v. United States of America, Acting by and Through Norman A. Carlson, Director, Federal Prison Systems · filed 1981-05-27

Since the district court has no jurisdiction to review final personnel orders under the Reform Act, it was not acting in aid of its own appellate jurisdiction when it granted the injunction in the present case. Rather, we believe, it was acting in the traditional role of an equity court and that its jurisdiction was founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976), the “federal question” provision.

Section 1331 authorizes federal courts to grant injunctive and declaratory relief when a real controversy is presented.

Green v. Lehman · filed 1982-03-23

Setting aside for the moment the fact that the Court has already concluded that it must dismiss the claims for equitable relief because of the lack of a justiciable issue, there is no question that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 vests the Court with the authority to grant injunctive and declaratory relief.

A suit against the Army seeking only equitable reinstatement rather than money damages rested on Sections 1331, 1361, and 1651, not the Tucker Act.

Ben-Shalom v. Secretary of the Army · filed 1986-12-18

After having carefully reviewed the record, the briefs, and argument of counsel, we hold that petitioner sued the Army in the district court for the equitable relief of a reinstatement writ of mandamus, but did not include in her suit a claim for money damages; that, accordingly, the jurisdiction of that court was based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,1361, and 1651 and was not based in whole or in part on 28 U.S.C. § 1346 as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2) in order for this court to have jurisdiction of this appeal; that, consequently, we do not have jurisdiction to decide the appeal on the merits; and that the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has the necessary jurisdiction to decide the case, and it should be transferred to that court.

A civil action under Section 1331 is an appropriate mechanism for seeking return of property taken through an administrative forfeiture.

In Re Ninety-One Thousand Dollars in United States Currency · filed 1989-06-20

... while a civil action for return of property under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 would be the appropriate mechanism for seeking relief from an administrative forfeiture.

Section 1331 allows federal courts to hear federal employees’ constitutional claims for injunctive relief despite available administrative remedies under the Civil Service Reform Act.

Mitchum v. Hurt · filed 1995-12-29

We assume that the power of the federal courts to award legal and equitable relief in actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 stems from the same source, see Bush, 462 U.S. at 374, but that does not mean that the factors that counsel against one type of relief are equally applicable with respect to the other. ... We therefore hold that Bush and the related Supreme Court decisions on which the defendants rely did not prevent the district court from entertaining the appellants' requests for injunctive relief.

Section 1331 supports district court jurisdiction over a federal procurement challenge seeking equitable relief against an agency when the suit’s primary objective is not money damages.

Veda, Incorporated v. United States Department Of The Air Force · filed 1997-04-11

In view of the fact that Veda's primary objective in filing suit against the Air Force was not to obtain monetary damages, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. § 702.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction to exercise traditional equitable powers in actions arising under federal law without a more specific statutory basis.

Simmat v. United States Bureau of Prisons · filed 2005-07-01

Section 1331 thus provides jurisdiction for the exercise of the traditional powers of equity in actions arising under federal law. No more specific statutory basis is required.

Section 1331 can support equitable relief against federal officials in the nature of an injunction or mandamus.

Arocho v. Nafzinger · filed 2010-03-01

Bivens suits are limited to damages, but equitable relief is available in the nature of injunction and/or mandamus under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and/or 1361.

Section 1331 gives federal courts authority to issue an injunction in an appropriate case arising under the Constitution.

Pitts v. Bagwell · filed 2022-04-20

Section 1331 vests this court with equitable powers that include the authority to issue an injunction in appropriate cases.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a claim seeks an equitable remedy.

Highmark River Retreat, L.P v. iakia-palmer · filed 2025-09-23

The fact that the federal judicial power extends to cases in equity, see U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1, does not mean that all cases seeking an equitable remedy arise under federal law or present a federal question.

Section 1331 can support injunctive relief against federal officials who violate federal law.

Oluwatoyin · filed 2025-11-19

Section 2241 does not provide subject matter jurisdiction for his conditions-of- confinement claims; however, there is well-established precedent that allows federal courts “in some circumstances to grant injunctive relief against federal officials violating federal law” under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides a basis for a civil rights action seeking equitable relief for alleged federal constitutional violations.

Aborisade · filed 2026-02-03

In light of that obligation and the liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings, see Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008), the court finds the instant § 2241 petition is properly construed as a civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, for equitable relief for alleged constitutional violations, and Bivens, to the extent Petitioner seeks monetary damages.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over post-award actions seeking equitable relief for violations of federal procurement law.

Chemung County v. Dole · filed 1986-01-23

The jurisdiction of the district courts over actions for post-award equitable relief brought under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 remains unimpaired.

Section 1331 does not provide a means to challenge criminal proceedings to obtain release from custody, expungement, or related relief.

Garrett v. Korando · filed 2025-03-24

However, Plaintiff may not invoke this statute to challenge his criminal proceedings in order to obtain release from custody, expungement of his record, or related relief.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to challenge prior criminal convictions and sentences.

Egli v. Fojtik · filed 2024-01-18

Neither 28 U.S.C. § 1331 nor 18 U.S.C. § 3231 provide a basis for jurisdiction for Mr. Egli to now challenge his prior convictions and sentences.

Section 1331 does not provide a separate jurisdictional basis for a prisoner's declaratory or injunctive challenge that effectively seeks release on parole, because habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy.

Geraghty v. United States Parole Commission · filed 1977-02-24

Nevertheless, petitioner has persisted in asserting that there is a separate declaratory and injunctive aspect to the case, jurisdiction for which is alleged under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1361. ... Thus, the action falls squarely within the class of cases for which habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy. ... Consequently, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 provides the sole jurisdictional basis for this action.

Section 1331 cannot supply jurisdiction for a collateral attack on a court-martial conviction when habeas corpus is the exclusive jurisdictional remedy.

Solomon Monk, A/K/A David L. Martin v. Secretary of the Navy · filed 1986-06-20

The district court based its jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201 (1982), the general federal question and declaratory judgment provisions, or, in the alternative, on ... (1982), the federal habeas corpus provisions. But, since Monk’s claim involves a collateral attack on his conviction, the latter statute provides the ... exclusive ... basis for jurisdiction. ... Under that statute, the district court was without jurisdiction and, in these circumstances, neither 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201 nor 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) can supply an independent basis for jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over a habeas petition alleging a federal-law violation even when the prisoner is outside the district, although the court still needs personal jurisdiction over the custodian.

Dunne v. Henman · filed 1989-05-18

The fact that a prisoner is outside the territorial limits of a federal district court does not deprive it of subject matter jurisdiction. ... A district court has ... jurisdiction over a habeas corpus petition alleging a violation of federal law under federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; ... We conclude, therefore, that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the named respondent, the Warden of the United States Penitentiary, Marion, Illinois.

The specific federal habeas remedy overrides Section 1331 when a prisoner attacks confinement through Bivens.

Mosteller v. Smith · filed 1990-11-20

This case presents a conflict between the narrow jurisdiction and specific remedy under § 2255 and the broad jurisdiction of § 1331, and general remedy under ... Bivens. ... However, federal habeas remedies are the exclusive vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of confinement.

Section 1331 does not independently confer jurisdiction over a collateral attack on a federal conviction or sentence when Section 2255 provides the exclusive basis for jurisdiction.

In re Nezzy Adderly · filed 2013-06-11

Section 2255 of title 28 provides the exclusive basis for jurisdiction over Adderly’s collateral attack on his conviction and sentence; the federal question jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, does not supply an independent basis for jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not authorize release from incarceration.

Reese v. Sproul · filed 2020-08-05

A request for release from incarceration cannot be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or Bivens.

Section 1331 does not authorize an injunction releasing an ICE detainee from custody; release must be sought through habeas corpus.

Barco v. Price · filed 2020-08-13

He cannot challenge the conditions of his confinement under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and he cannot obtain release from ICE custody at Otero through injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A complaint need not expressly cite Section 1331 when its factual allegations and requested relief fairly show that the plaintiff relies on a federal claim.

Boarhead Corporation v. Edwin B. Erickson, Region Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region I · filed 1991-01-16

Although the statement of jurisdiction in Boarhead’s complaint does not specifically mention § 1331, it is sufficient to invoke the district court’s federal question jurisdiction, unless CERCLA mandates a contrary conclusion.

A complaint’s failure to cite Section 1331 does not defeat jurisdiction when its factual allegations establish a federal claim.

Conte v. Department of the Navy · filed 1991-01-25

Despite claiming that the Navy has violated his substantive due process right to personal security and safety, plaintiff has not alleged federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, the Court will not insist on technical compliance with Rule 8(a)(1) where the complaint alleges facts that would confer jurisdiction.

Section 1331(a) jurisdiction may be inferred from facts pleaded in the complaint even when the jurisdictional allegation is insufficient, and the action need not be dismissed on that pleading defect.

Harary v. W. Michael Blumenthal, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of America · filed 1977-05-19(a)

When the complaint pleads facts from which federal jurisdiction may be inferred, however, the insufficiency of the jurisdictional allegation is not controlling, and the action need not be dismissed. ... The complaint, in specifying the facts relating to appellant’s disbarment by the Secretary, plainly alleged a “matter in controversy . . . arising] under the . . laws ... of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 cannot supply jurisdiction for constitutional claims against municipal defendants when plaintiffs neither assert a Section 1331 claim nor allege the required amount in controversy.

Cullen v. New York State Civil Service Commission · filed 1977-06-27

The plaintiffs have failed to assert a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and to allege a jurisdictional amount, which precludes a jurisdictional basis under § 1331 for the injunctive portion of the claim against the Town of Hempstead and the County of Nassau, ... and possibly the monetary claims for relief, ....

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction when pleadings generously construed describe a federal cause of action, even though civil-rights jurisdiction under § 1343(3) is unavailable.

Roberts v. City of Woonsocket · filed 1978-05-22

This is a case which could claim the attention of the district court only because the pleadings, generously viewed, could be read as describing a federal cause of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, although not under § 1343(3).

Section 1331(a) jurisdiction is not defeated by a complaint’s failure to cite the statute when the alleged facts sufficiently support federal-question jurisdiction.

Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. · filed 1978-06-26(a)

Appellees’ failure to assert § 1331 (a) as a basis for jurisdiction in their complaint is not fatal since the facts alleged are sufficient to support such jurisdiction.

A complaint’s failure to cite Section 1331 is not fatal when its allegations reveal a sufficient basis for Section 1331 jurisdiction.

Vukonich v. Civil Service Commission and the United States of America, Defendants · filed 1978-12-19

Although not alleged in the complaint, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976) provides an adequate basis for jurisdiction in this case. The failure to allege this alternate basis for jurisdiction is not fatal where the complaint revealed a basis for § 1331 jurisdiction.

A complaint need not expressly cite Section 1331(a) when its allegations satisfy the statute's jurisdictional requirements.

Gorman v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service · filed 1980-06-27(a)

Although sections 1331(a) and 1346(a)(2) were not specified as bases for jurisdiction in Gor-man’s complaint, since the allegations meet the statutory requirements, the lower court had jurisdiction despite the omission.

Under Section 1331's former amount requirement for suits against nonfederal parties, failure to allege $10,000 in controversy precludes reliance on federal-question jurisdiction.

Hernandez v. Pierce · filed 1981-04-29

Plaintiffs assert federal-question jurisdiction pursuant to section 1331, yet they fail (in either their original or amended complaint) to allege the $10,000 amount in controversy required for federal-question suits against all parties other than federal officials. This pleading defect alone precludes them from relying upon section 1331.

A complaint that mistakenly alleges another jurisdictional statute may be amended to allege conceded federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331.

E. M. Trucks, Inc. v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Plan · filed 1981-07-06

Although jurisdiction does not exist under 29 U.S.C. § 1451, as alleged in the Complaint, defendant concedes that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Consequently, plaintiffs should and will be permitted to amend their Complaint to allege jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A complaint's failure to cite Section 1331 is not fatal when it asserts federal constitutional claims within the district court's jurisdiction.

Local No. P-1236, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen v. Jones Dairy Farm · filed 1981-08-17

Although the complaint omits any reference to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the statute which allows district courts to hear such claims, the omission is not fatal, and I find that the court does have jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to determine whether a federal employee’s constitutional rights were violated even when the complaint invokes the wrong jurisdictional authorities.

Fields v. Harris · filed 1981-08-25

Accordingly, this Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s claim under either 28 U.S.C. § 1361 or 5 U.S.C. § 5596; but finds that it does have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to determine whether any constitutional rights of the plaintiff have been violated.

A complaint's failure to state its Section 1331 jurisdictional basis does not require dismissal when the asserted federal civil-rights claims support jurisdiction and amendment can cure the pleading defect.

Barlow v. Pep Boys, Inc. · filed 1985-10-04

However, the failure to state the grounds upon which jurisdiction depends does not automatically result in dismissal of the complaint; leave to amend the complaint should be freely given in order to cure this defect. ... In either case, jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) or 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (civil rights jurisdiction). The plaintiff may amend the complaint in order to state the basis for this court’s jurisdiction.

A complaint’s failure to cite Section 1331(a) expressly is not fatal when its factual allegations attempt to state a federal constitutional violation.

Keller v. United States · filed 1987-07-17(a)

A party’s failure to present in its complaint the specific basis for jurisdiction is not fatal when the complaint alleges facts sufficient to support federal court jurisdiction. ... It is clear from the first amended complaint that plaintiff has attempted to allege a constitutional violation, and this court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear such constitutional claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). Therefore, dismissal is inappropriate on this ground.

A plaintiff cannot establish Section 1331 jurisdiction merely by citing federal statutes without pleading facts that state a cognizable federal claim.

Odishelidze v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. · filed 1987-08-21

A plaintiff cannot activate federal-court jurisdiction by just citing federal laws which he tries to use as a sack to put in all the facts he sees fit.

A complaint need not cite Section 1331 when its factual allegations sufficiently establish an action arising under the Constitution.

Frank Nitty Walden, II v. Bartlett · filed 1988-03-01

Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a litigant set forth “a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends.” It does not require that a litigant cite the statute section conferring jurisdiction, as long as facts sufficient to invoke the court’s jurisdiction are alleged.

A complaint must allege facts bringing the claim within a federal statute that creates a private remedy to establish Section 1331 jurisdiction; merely naming federal statutes without facts implicating them is insufficient.

Russom v. Kilgore Corp. · filed 1988-08-24

The complaint also alleges that a federal question arises out of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2051, ... None of the facts alleged in the complaint concern the use or involvement of anything remotely connected with the above definition of a consumer product. ... Plaintiffs also invoke the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. § 651, ... However, “there is no legislative history or case law to support [the] proposition that OSHA created a private civil remedy and the clear language of § 653(b)(4) of the Act specifically evidences a congressional intention to the contrary.” ... The Court therefore concludes that sufficient allegations of federal question have not been asserted to support the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court.

A Section 1983 plaintiff who depends on Section 1331 must allege federal-question jurisdiction, and a bare assertion that conduct violated due process is insufficient to do so.

Van Daam v. Chrysler First Financial Services Corp. · filed 1989-02-24

In a Section 1983 claim, this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction in this case must depend on the broader reach of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. Here, however, federal question jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 has not been alleged by plaintiff in his complaint. Plaintiff’s bare bones allegation that the challenged conduct was done in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is insufficient as an averment of this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction does not require a complaint to name the jurisdiction-conferring provision when its factual allegations establish a constitutional due-process claim.

Love v. United States · filed 1989-04-06

This jurisdictional argument is meritless. We have consistently held that no jurisdiction-conferring provision need be specifically pleaded, as long as the complaint sets forth facts giving the court jurisdiction. ... Such is the case here. The Loves’ complaint alleges facts showing a violation of due process by the individual defendants and expressly states that due process was violated. The district court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A party invoking Section 1331 bears the burden of showing federal jurisdiction clearly and distinctly; merely suggesting a federal question is insufficient.

Bilal v. Philip E. Kaplan, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas · filed 1990-05-10

Bilal’s pleadings do not establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. If the sufficiency of the jurisdictional allegations is challenged by the court or an opposing party, the burden of proof as to the existence of federal jurisdiction is on the party that claims that jurisdiction exists. ... Moreover, federal court jurisdiction must affirmatively appear clearly and distinctly. The mere suggestion of a federal question is not sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of federal courts.

Section 1331 removal jurisdiction cannot rest on a bare legal conclusion that ERISA governs; the removing party must allege the facts essential to the federal question.

Bryant v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama · filed 1990-11-23

A removal based on the existence of a federal question must allege all facts essential to the existence of that federal question. The existence of a federal question cannot be left to mere speculation.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint makes no jurisdictional allegations and states no facts supporting federal jurisdiction.

Collins v. G/h Contracting Company Upjohn Security Division Local Union Hall 640 Brand Industrial Services, Inc. · filed 1994-02-03

Collins also failed to set forth any facts in his complaint to establish either federal question or diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331 or 1332. ... Collins has made no jurisdictional allegations and has not set forth any factual basis for federal court jurisdiction.

When a complaint appears to invoke federal-question jurisdiction and a new complaint would be time-barred, the plaintiff should be allowed to amend to clarify the jurisdictional basis and claims before dismissal is reconsidered.

Brown v. Hill · filed 2014-07-25

It appears, therefore, that appellant was attempting to invoke the district court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction). ... But if appellant were to file a new complaint stating the basis for the district court’s jurisdiction, the complaint would be time-barred. ... Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the district court is directed to allow appellant to amend his ... complaint to clearly state the jurisdictional basis for this action and all of the claims appellant is attempting to raise, and to reconsider the dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Merely checking the federal-question box on a civil cover sheet does not establish jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Mantis Transportation v. Kenner · filed 2014-09-09

However, merely checking a box cannot create federal question jurisdiction.

Under Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement, constitutional damages claims against defendants other than the United States must be dismissed when it is legally certain the plaintiffs cannot recover more than $10,000.

Townsend v. Carmel · filed 1980-03-18

§ 1331 provides this Court with a basis for jurisdiction. In suits against Defendants other than the United States, damages must be in excess of $10,000. Because Defendants have proven to a legal certainty that Plaintiffs cannot meet this statutory criterion, the claims against the individual Defendants must be dismissed.

Under Section 1331(a)’s former amount-in-controversy requirement, dismissal is proper only when it is legally certain that the plaintiff cannot recover more than $10,000, including potentially available exemplary damages.

Love v. Budai · filed 1980-12-04(a)

To dismiss a claim on jurisdictional amount grounds, the court must find to a legal certainty that the plaintiff could not recover in excess of $10,000. ... When the possibility of exemplary damages is added, Bell v. Preferred Life Assurance Society, 320 U.S. 238, 240, 64 S.Ct. 5, 6, 88 L.Ed. 15 (1943), we cannot agree that to a legal certainty the assault claim must fail because of an insufficient price tag.

The 1976 amendment to Section 1331(a) eliminated the amount-in-controversy requirement for suits against the United States, federal agencies, and federal officials, applies procedurally to pending actions, and can supply jurisdiction even when not pleaded.

First Nat. Bank of Milaca v. Smith · filed 1977-05-31(a)

However, the 1976 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (Supp. VI, 1976) effectively eliminated this bar by deleting the $10,-000.00 amount in controversy requirement for federal jurisdiction where the defendant is the United States, a federal agency, or a federal employee alleged to have been acting in his official capacity. ... Thus, even though the amendment was passed subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit, and even though plaintiff has not pleaded it as a jurisdictional base, 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (Supp. VI, 1976) provides federal jurisdiction in the instant case.

The 1976 amendment removing Section 1331's amount-in-controversy requirement for federal agency actions applies retroactively to pending cases because changes in statutory jurisdiction are procedural absent contrary congressional intent.

Ortiz v. Department of Housing & Urban Development · filed 1977-12-07

Notwithstanding any jurisdictional infirmities that may have existed at such time, we now find that we have federal question jurisdiction over this case. ... The text and legislative history of P.L. 94-574 nowhere indicate that Congress intended the amendment to have a limited prospective application. Unless a contrary intent appears, changes in statutory jurisdiction apply to pending actions.

As amended, Section 1331(a) imposes no amount-in-controversy requirement in a federal-law action of this kind against federal officials.

Inland Oil & Transport Co. v. Adams · filed 1978-05-24(a)

We agree with Inland that the district court had subject matter " jurisdiction" of the case since it arises under the laws of the United States, and as 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) is now written, no jurisdictional amount is required in a case of this kind.

Section 1331(a) gives district courts jurisdiction, without an amount-in-controversy requirement, over official-capacity actions against the United States, its agencies, and its officers or employees.

Cervase v. Office of the Federal Register · filed 1978-05-30(a)

We do know, however, that under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) there clearly was subject matter jurisdiction in the district court, regardless of the amount in controversy, over a complaint against the United States, any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof sued in his official capacity.

The 1976 amendment to Section 1331(a) eliminated the amount-in-controversy requirement for actions against the United States, its agencies, and officers or employees acting in an official capacity.

Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co. · filed 1978-05-31(a)

This general federal-question statute was amended in 1976 to eliminate the amount-in-controversy requirement with regard to actions “brought against the United States, any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof in his official capacity.” ... Hence the fact that in 1973 respondent in its complaint did not allege $10,000 in controversy is now of no moment. ... Nor does it matter that the complaint does not in so many words assert § 1331 (a) as a basis of jurisdiction, since the facts alleged in it are sufficient to establish such jurisdiction and the complaint appeared jurisdictionally correct when filed.

Section 1331(a) eliminates the amount-in-controversy requirement for actions against the United States, its agencies, and federal officers or employees sued in their official capacities.

Quern v. Mandley · filed 1978-06-06(a)

We express no view as to the Court of Appeals’ theory of jurisdiction in light of the intervening amendment of 28 U. S. C. § 1331, which, by eliminating the requirement of $10,000 in controversy in any action “against the United States, any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof in his official capacity,” 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (a) (1976 ed.), clearly confers jurisdiction over the federal defendants in these cases.

The 1976 amendment eliminating Section 1331's amount-in-controversy requirement for actions against federal defendants does not apply to an action filed before the amendment, whose jurisdiction is measured under the statute in force at filing.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Berklund · filed 1978-06-30

However, this suit was filed prior to the amendment, and federal jurisdiction is to “be measured according to the provisions of § 1331 as it stood when the complaint was filed.”

Amended § 1331(a) eliminates the amount-in-controversy requirement in an official-capacity suit against a federal officer.

United States v. Kane · filed 1978-11-27(a)

... can now properly be founded on the revised terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) since a plaintiff no longer need meet the amount in controversy requirement in a suit brought against a Federal officer in his official capacity.

Amended Section 1331(a) gives federal courts jurisdiction to review federal agency action without satisfying an amount-in-controversy requirement.

Albert v. Chafee · filed 1978-12-15(a)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) now provides: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States except that no such sum or value shall be required in any such action brought against the United States, any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof in his official capacity." We find that pursuant to this section Albert is properly in federal court.

Section 1331(a) authorizes federal-law or constitutional actions against federal officials without regard to the amount in controversy.

Hark v. Dragon · filed 1979-05-03(a)

The court has jurisdiction over defendant Marshall under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) authorizing suits against federal officials arising under federal laws or the Constitution without regard to the amount in controversy.