28 U.S.C. § 1331

Federal-question jurisdiction over a copyright ownership claim is not barred by the domestic relations exception when the claim seeks no divorce, alimony, or child custody decree.

Tomas v. Gillespie · filed 2005-01-05

This case neither involves “the issuance of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree” nor is brought under diversity jurisdiction. Instead, the declaratory relief is sought pursuant to federal question jurisdiction and bears only on Tomas' statutory entitlements to copyright ownership interests as Gillespie's child under the Copyright Act. Therefore, the "domestic relations" exception does not apply.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a federal common-law challenge to tribal court jurisdiction, and the domestic relations exception does not limit that jurisdiction.

Atwood v. Fort Peck · filed 2008-01-17

[4] In conclusion, subject matter jurisdiction exists in this case under § 1331 and federal common law. The domestic relations exception does not apply.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction despite the domestic relations exception, which applies only to diversity jurisdiction.

Atwood v. Fort Peck Tribal Court Assiniboine · filed 2008-01-18

We hold that the domestic relations exception applies only to the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Because federal courts have jurisdiction in this case under the federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the district court erred by applying the domestic relations exception.

The domestic relations exception does not limit federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 over constitutional challenges to state marriage laws.

Marie v. Moser · filed 2014-11-04

The domestic relations exception Secretary Moser invokes is a narrow exception to federal court diversity jurisdiction and it “encompasses only cases involving the issuance of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree.” ... This exception does not apply to cases like this one, where a federal court has jurisdiction over a case because that case presents a “federal question.”

The domestic relations exception does not limit federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard · filed 2015-01-12

But the domestic relations exception only applies to this court’s diversity jurisdiction, not its federal question jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 is subject to the domestic relations exception for disputes centered on child custody.

Tait v. Powell · filed 2017-03-10

Tait’s complaint alleges that subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) and 1332 (diversity of citizenship). ... Accordingly, Tait’s complaint falls squarely within the domestic relations exception to federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over domestic relations disputes involving child support enforcement.

(PS) Amaya v. McGill · filed 2019-10-07

However, federal courts have consistently held that “domestic relations” issues are exempt from federal jurisdiction, whether the issues are raised as a matter of federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 has no domestic relations exception to federal-question jurisdiction.

Deem v. DiMella-Deem · filed 2019-10-30

Even if that answer were not compelled by our holding in Williams, we would find no basis for inferring a domestic relations exception to the federal‐question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over federal claims that arise from a child custody dispute when resolving them would intrude on state domestic relations matters.

Baskerville v. Richmond County Family Court · filed 2020-01-06

The plaintiff makes the following federal claims: a procedural due process claim, a First Amendment claim, and a claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 242. However, each claim “begin[s] and end[s] in a domestic dispute.” ... Accordingly, the plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is subject to domestic relations abstention for claims seeking federal intervention in child custody proceedings.

Bey v. La Casse · filed 2021-03-22

But this Court cannot consider those claims because of the domestic relations abstention doctrine.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to a state divorce statute, and the domestic relations exception does not bar deciding that challenge when the court need not issue a divorce decree.

Watson v. Watson · filed 2021-04-05

In sum, the domestic relations exception does not bar this Court from deciding if the Mississippi statute is constitutional as that determination does not require the Court to issue a divorce decree.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a child custody dispute merely because the complaint invokes the Constitution.

VAZQUEZ v. NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT · filed 2021-07-02

As child custody is a matter of domestic relations, the District of New Jersey does not retain jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims, and the domestic relations exception does not bar those claims.

Oliver Vaughn:Douce v. DCP&P · filed 2021-08-04

Thus, to the extent that Appellant’s claims alleged federal constitutional violations, which invoke federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the District Court erred in concluding that the claims were barred by the domestic relations exception.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is subject to domestic-relations abstention when a federal claim concerns domestic-relations issues that can be fully and fairly decided in state court.

Bey v. Furman · filed 2021-08-23

Plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting that there are any obstacles preventing him from receiving a full and fair determination regarding whether he owes child support. Accordingly, under the domestic-relations abstention doctrine, the Court abstains from exercising its federal- question jurisdiction over Plaintiff's federal-law claims arising from those issues.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is subject to domestic relations abstention for claims involving domestic relations issues that can be fully and fairly resolved in state court.

Lyons v. John/Jane Does · filed 2022-02-03

The domestic relations abstention doctrine requires this Court to abstain from exercising federal question jurisdiction over domestic relations issues, such as those implicated in Plaintiffs’ claims. ... Plaintiff’s allegations do not suggest, however, that he was denied a full and fair hearing in the state courts. The Court must therefore abstain from exercising its federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims arising from the issuance of state-court orders and their enforcement.

Federal-question jurisdiction is subject to domestic relations abstention when domestic relations claims can be fully and fairly determined in state court.

Buxbaum v. Cornell · filed 2022-05-16

The domestic relations abstention doctrine requires this Court to abstain from exercising federal question jurisdiction over domestic relations issues, such as those implicated in Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the core issue is a child custody decree, even if the complaint asserts constitutional claims.

Sellers v. Joyner · filed 2022-05-24

The defendants removed the matter to this Court, alleging federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, this case falls within the domestic-relations exception to federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a suit seeking to modify or interpret an existing divorce or child-custody decree.

Gordon v. Smith · filed 2022-06-29

The domestic relations exception precludes the Court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a suit seeking to set aside or recalculate a state child-support order under the domestic relations exception.

McGuire v. State of Tennessee · filed 2022-07-14

Because the exception applies, McGuire’s request for relief is “outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts.”

Federal-question jurisdiction does not extend to a request to modify an existing divorce or child-custody decree under the domestic relations exception.

Greenberg v. Slatery · filed 2022-08-04

The domestic relations exception precludes the exercise of subject-matter jurisdiction in this case.

The domestic relations exception can limit federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Transamerica Life Insurance Company v. Douglas · filed 2023-03-27

So this Court remains bound by Sixth Circuit authority holding that the domestic relations exception can be applicable in federal question cases.

Section 1331 does not give district courts jurisdiction to issue or modify child custody decrees, even when the suit is framed as a federal-question action.

Gaines v. Hagerty · filed 2023-04-04

Though this suit was brought in the guise of a federal question, the complaint asks this Court to void the state court’s child custody and support order, grant Gaines full custody of his daughter, and modify Sturgeon’s custody over the child. This Court does not have the power to issue a child custody decree, and federal courts do not have jurisdiction to resolve domestic relations matters. The Court concludes that the domestic relations exception applies to this case, and the case must therefore be dismissed.

Federal-question jurisdiction is subject to domestic relations abstention when the issues can be fully and fairly determined in state court.

Hart v. Thompson · filed 2023-06-12

Thus, unless he shows that there is an obstacle that prevents him from receiving a full and fair determination of those issues in the state courts, this Court must abstain from exercising its federal question jurisdiction of his claims arising from the family court’s orders and judgments and their enforcement.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a matter arising directly from family law.

City of Fitzgerald, Georgia v. Balom · filed 2023-08-15

So, there can be no federal question jurisdiction arising directly from a family law matter.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a matter arising directly from family law.

The Georgia Department of Human Services, ex. rel. v. Balom · filed 2023-08-15

So, there can be no federal question jurisdiction arising directly from a family law matter.

Federal courts should abstain from exercising federal-question jurisdiction over claims seeking divorce, support payments, or child custody.

Mayo v. Mayo · filed 2023-08-29

He does not establish this Court’s jurisdiction to act in these matters. Generally, federal courts should abstain from exercising federal-question jurisdiction over claims in which they are “asked to grant a divorce or annulment, determine support payments, or award custody of a child.”

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is not subject to the domestic relations exception.

Serafin v. Realmark Holdings, LLC · filed 2023-10-26

Because the domestic relations exception does not apply where federal questions provide the basis for federal jurisdiction, dismissal on that ground is not appropriate here.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 is subject to the domestic relations exception for child custody matters.

Galan v. Bellinsky · filed 2023-11-21

The domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction applies in matters based on a court’s federal question jurisdiction. ... The state court case involves a child custody issue seeking to modify the parenting plan and to relocate the parties’ children, and therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case under the domestic relations exception.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is subject to domestic relations abstention when claims affect family court proceedings.

Shaheed v. Knight Jr. · filed 2024-02-07

The domestic relations abstention doctrine requires that this Court abstain from exercising federal question jurisdiction over claims that affect family court proceedings.

Federal-question jurisdiction is subject to domestic relations abstention for claims that affect family court proceedings.

Shaheed v. Knight Jr. · filed 2024-03-05

The domestic relations abstention doctrine requires that this Court abstain from exercising federal question jurisdiction over claims that affect family court proceedings.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is subject to abstention from requests for divorce, child-custody, or child-support decisions.

Masri v. Liebowitz · filed 2024-04-15

Thus, notwithstanding whether this Court is considering this action under its original federal question or diversity jurisdiction, it must either abstain from considering, or lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider, any request by Plaintiff to issue a divorce, child-custody, and/or child- support decision.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a child-support dispute unless a substantial federal question exists apart from the domestic-relations issue.

State of Wisconsin Oneida County Child Support Agency v. Logalbo, Orion · filed 2024-06-10

Similarly, unless a substantial federal question “transcends or exists apart from” a dispute involving family law or domestic relations, federal courts typically must decline jurisdiction even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when purported federal claims are a pretext for challenging a child-custody decree.

Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Juvenile Division, Inc v. Bey · filed 2024-07-15

Bey invokes federal statutes and the United States Constitution to no avail. These allegations are no more than a mere pretense for Bey’s disagreement with the State Court’s child custody decree regarding J.M.

Section 1331 does not give a federal court jurisdiction to modify or undo state domestic-relations orders.

Merritt v. Grady · filed 2024-07-30

Insofar as he asks this Court to modify or undo any such orders, the domestic-relations exception bars the Court from exercising jurisdiction over those claims. That this case is brought under the Court’s federal- question jurisdiction, rather than its diversity jurisdiction, makes no difference.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction, but the domestic-relations exception bars claims that require a federal court to review state child-custody orders.

Adams v. Cook County, Illinois · filed 2024-12-30

Because his complaint asserts claims under federal law—namely, § 1983—Adams has invoked the Court’s federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, Adams’s complaint revolves entirely around his issues with the various orders entered in ongoing child-custody proceedings, and all his claims would require this Court to review the merits of those orders, thus placing the claims squarely within the domestic-relations exception.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over FLSA claims; the domestic relations exception applies only to diversity jurisdiction.

Castello v. Sudora, LLC · filed 2025-01-24

Defendants contend that the domestic relations exception divests this Court of jurisdiction, but the domestic relations exception applies only to diversity jurisdiction, not federal question jurisdiction. ... Because this case arises under FLSA, this Court has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give a federal court jurisdiction over a claim seeking relief from child support payments when the domestic-relations exception applies.

Blair v. Racine Child Support Agency · filed 2025-06-17

They also have the authority to consider and decide cases that involve violations of federal laws or the federal Constitution—this is called “federal question” jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1331. ... Because the plaintiff’s complaint seeks relief from child support payments, his lawsuit “falls squarely within the domestic-relations exception” to federal jurisdiction. Id.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a child custody dispute under the domestic-relations exception, even when the plaintiff alleges constitutional violations.

Schneider v. Well Point Care Network · filed 2025-06-23

Because the plaintiff seeks to gain custody of his daughter, his lawsuit falls squarely within the domestic-relations exception to federal jurisdiction. ... Because the court has neither diversity jurisdiction nor federal question jurisdiction, it cannot adjudicate the plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims that would invalidate or interfere with state divorce orders under the domestic relations exception.

O'Neil v. Carter · filed 2025-07-29

The domestic relations exception applies to both federal question and diversity suits. ... Doing so would be outside of this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under the domestic relations exception.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over claims arising directly from a state Family Court child support action when the domestic relations exception applies.

Carbone v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-08-18

Here, the claims for which Plaintiff seeks relief, whether the Court views them under federal question or diversity jurisdiction, arise directly from the Family Court child support action, and thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

Federal courts abstain from exercising federal-question jurisdiction over domestic relations claims that can be fully and fairly decided in state court.

Porter v. Onondaga County Family Court · filed 2025-08-21

This Court is also precluded from intervening in Plaintiff’s Family Court custody proceedings by the domestic relations abstention doctrine. In American Airlines, Inc. v. Block, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit instructed federal district courts to abstain from exercising federal question jurisdiction of claims involving domestic relations issues, so long as those claims could be fully and fairly determined in the state courts.

In federal-question cases, the domestic relations abstention doctrine prevents federal courts from intervening in state child-support proceedings.

Brewington v. Kaur · filed 2025-08-27

Thus, the domestic relations abstention doctrine in federal question cases requires federal courts to abstain from interfering in state cases raising family law or domestic relations issues. ... Here, the claims for which plaintiffs seek relief, no matter how they attempt to frame them, arise directly from the child support action in Family Court, and thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a suit seeking a child custody decree, even when the plaintiff asserts constitutional claims.

Powers v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2025-09-11

In this case Powers asserts constitutional claims against the defendants over which the Court would ordinarily possess federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3). However, Powers’s claims are inextricably intertwined with ongoing domestic relations proceedings that are pending in the state courts on Kentucky. ... Because Powers asks this Court to grant her custody over her children, the domestic relations exception applies, warranting dismissal.

Federal-question jurisdiction is subject to domestic relations abstention when a claim seeks federal court intervention in a state divorce case.

Scott v. Scott · filed 2025-09-25

Here, the claims for which Plaintiff seeks relief, whether under federal question or diversity jurisdiction, and no matter how he attempts to frame them, arise directly from the divorce action, and thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over claims premised on child support obligations previously adjudicated in state court when the domestic relations exception applies.

Beverly v. Highland County Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) · filed 2025-10-10

The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to the domestic relations exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Federal courts must abstain from exercising federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising directly from state child support proceedings.

Bent · filed 2025-10-15

Under the domestic relations abstention doctrine, however, the Court must abstain from exercising its federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, which are uniquely the province of the state courts.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is subject to domestic relations abstention when a claim would interfere with state family-law proceedings.

Brewington · filed 2025-10-16

The domestic relations abstention doctrine in federal question cases requires federal courts to abstain from interfering in state cases raising family law or domestic relations issues.

Federal-question jurisdiction does not extend to a suit whose core concern is child custody, even when it alleges federal civil rights violations.

Page · filed 2025-10-23

Although Plaintiff brings an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his federal civil rights, the Court nonetheless lacks jurisdiction. Federal courts lack jurisdiction over domestic relations matters.

Federal-question jurisdiction does not permit a district court to intervene in a state child-support action when domestic relations abstention applies.

Carbone · filed 2025-10-31

Here, the claims for which Plaintiff seeks relief — that is, challenging the garnishment of his social security disability benefits and the denial of his passport based on child support arrears — whether under federal question or diversity jurisdiction, and no matter how he attempts to frame them, arise directly from the Family Court child support action, and thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not give a federal court jurisdiction to decide a child-custody dispute.

Escobar · filed 2025-12-02

Federal courts do not have jurisdiction to decide domestic relations disputes. ... Here, Escobar seeks relief from this Court to determine a domestic relations dispute of child custody.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the requested relief concerns child custody or welfare, even if federal issues are raised.

Guale Yamassee Tanasi Tribal Government v. Tennessee Department of Children’s Services · filed 2026-02-06

Because the remedy requested demonstrates that the core concern of Petitioners’ attempted removal is a domestic relations matter, namely the details of child welfare and custody arrangements, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a facial constitutional claim arising from a custody dispute when the claim is not obviously a pretense to obtain a custody determination.

Johnson v. Antkoviak · filed 2026-03-30

On its face, this is a constitutional claim not subject to the domestic-relations exception to jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over the federal claims in this custody dispute; the court declined to apply the domestic relations exception to them.

Scott · filed 2026-03-31

Given the lack of clear precedent by the Eleventh Circuit, this Court declines to extend the domestic relations exception to this matter arising under federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over divorce-related claims that fall within the domestic-relations exception.

Danzy · filed 2026-05-29

Because the plaintiff’s claims arise out of her divorce case, this lawsuit falls squarely within the domestic-relations exception to federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is subject to the domestic-relations exception when a claim seeks to countermand a state child-custody order.

Fahrbach v. Harder · filed 2023-12-06

But this appears to be a minority view, with the Sixth Circuit and other federal courts of appeal holding, directly or by implication, that it applies with equal force to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a constitutional claim arising from a custody dispute when the domestic-relations exception does not apply because the state court cannot grant effective relief.

Ruffalo v. Civiletti · filed 1983-03-17

Here, however, we are confronted with a case based on federal-question jurisdiction; Donna has asserted a claim “arising under the ... laws ... of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946). ... We need not decide this question, however, because the exception would not apply in this case in any event.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over child custody and child support disputes that fall within the domestic-relations exception, even when the plaintiff alleges constitutional violations.

Scott v. Milwaukee County Child Support Services · filed 2025-07-24

Because the plaintiff’s claims relate to child custody and child support obligations, his lawsuit falls squarely within the domestic- relations exception to federal jurisdiction. ... Because the court has neither diversity jurisdiction nor federal question jurisdiction, it cannot adjudicate the plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction to enforce the PKPA when courts of different states assert jurisdiction over a child-custody determination.

Heartfield v. Heartfield · filed 1985-01-07

Hence, we conclude that in situations such as this, where courts of two different states assert jurisdiction over a custody determination, federal district court intervention is proper and in fact necessary to enforce compliance with § 1738A.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a declaratory action to enforce a foreign custody decree when the well-pleaded claim necessarily requires establishing the correctness and applicability of federal law.

Cross-Appellant v. Vivian L. Jenson, Cross-Appellee, Clarence Ehli, Cross-Appellee · filed 1986-04-21

Because the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint in a coercive action seeking enforcement of a foreign custody decree would establish that "in order for the plaintiff to secure the relief sought he will be obliged to establish both the correctness and the applicability to his case of a proposition of federal law," federal question jurisdiction over such an action would exist. ... We therefore find federal question jurisdiction to exist over an action seeking a declaratory judgment determining the rights of the parties to such a suit.

Section 1331(a) gives federal courts jurisdiction to resolve inconsistent state-court assertions of child-custody jurisdiction under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act.

Rogers v. Platt · filed 1986-07-28(a)

Defendant’s final preliminary argument is that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because there is no express statutory grant of federal court jurisdiction in the PKPA. This issue has been addressed by many courts which have concluded federal courts have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331(a) to resolve inconsistent state court assertions of jurisdiction. ... Having considered each of defendants’ preliminary jurisdictional arguments in the case at bar, the Court concludes the contentions are without merit.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act action seeking to determine which state court has authority over an interstate child-custody dispute.

Maxie v. Fernandez · filed 1986-12-08

The first issue that this Court must address is that of jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction clearly exists under 28 U.S.C. section 1331. In addition, the Fourth Circuit has held, that Congress intended to create a right of action maintainable in the federal courts under PKPA.

Section 1331 does not support federal adjudication of an essentially domestic-relations custody dispute when adequate state remedies are available.

De Smet v. Snyder · filed 1987-02-12

This is essentially a domestic relations dispute and, for reasons of comity, federal courts do not assume jurisdiction over such matters, even when jurisdiction is predicated on a federal question. ... Therefore, because the De Smets have available state remedies, they cannot maintain their claim against these defendants for placing Erin in the custody of her mother.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to enforce the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act because Congress created no private federal cause of action under that statute.

Evans v. Evans · filed 1987-08-26

Because the Court concludes that Congress intended not to create a private federal cause of action under the PKPA, it would "flout” congressional intent to conclude that plaintiff’s claim nevertheless “arises under” federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction for a private action under the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act to reconcile conflicting state child-custody decrees because that Act directs state courts to honor sister-state decrees without creating a federal cause of action.

Thompson v. Sundholm · filed 1989-11-01

Plaintiff invokes jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, alleging that this is a case arising under 28 U.S.C. § 1738A, the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act (PKPA). The PKPA was created to relieve jurisdictional deadlocks among the states in child custody cases. Congress’ principal aim was to extend the requirements of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to custody determinations, not to create an entirely new federal cause of action. ... Unlike statutes that explicitly confer a right on a specified class of persons, the PKPA is a mandate directed to state courts to respect the custody decrees of sister states. ... ORDERED that all Defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are GRANTED.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a child custody dispute when the only asserted federal basis is the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, which supplies no federal cause of action.

Hays v. Hays · filed 1992-03-10

Petitioner also states that federal question jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, at the hearing, petitioner conceded that the only basis for which he alleges federal question jurisdiction is the PKPA. As previously discussed, no federal jurisdiction exists under the PKPA.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a claim under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act to determine which of two conflicting state custody decrees is valid, because the Act creates no implied private federal cause of action.

Nwankwo v. Kimberly Nwankwo and Edward Mitchell · filed 1992-12-09

As the district court held, there was no basis for original subject matter jurisdiction over the PKPA claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the PKPA does not provide an implied private federal cause of action to determine which of two conflicting state custody decrees is valid.

A complaint asserting a present right to possess Indian property conferred by federal law satisfies Section 1331’s arising-under and well-pleaded-complaint requirements.

Cape Fox Corp. v. United States · filed 1978-08-04(a)

A complaint asserting a current right to possession conferred by federal law, apart from state law, is a case arising under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1362.

Section 1331 covers an Indian nation’s claim to a present possessory right based on federal treaties and statutes, but not a purely state-law lease claim left after the federal claims fail.

Oneida Indian Nation of NY v. State of NY · filed 1981-09-10

The Court’s finding of jurisdiction was based upon the fact that the plaintiffs in these actions asserted claims “arising under the Constitution, laws [and] treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1362. ... However, now that those federal claims have been dismissed, plaintiffs’ lease claim is “wholly” dependent upon state law and may not be pursued in this Court.

Section 1331(a) does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state land-title dispute merely because determining title involves whether a river was navigable when the state entered the Union.

Coastal Petroleum Co. v. U.S.S. Agri-Chemicals · filed 1983-01-17(a)

Because we have concluded that federal question jurisdiction did not exist in ... we also conclude that there is no federal question presented as against the remaining four mining companies. Although Coastal attempts to assert other reasons upon which federal question jurisdiction exists, we find the arguments without merit.

A tribe’s claim to a current possessory right in aboriginal lands confirmed by federal treaty presents a federal controversy within Sections 1331 and 1362.

Cayuga Indian Nation Ex Rel. Patterson v. Cuomo · filed 1983-09-19

Having determined that the suit presents a federal controversy brought by an Indian tribe, the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this claim pursuant to § 1331 and § 1362.

Questions whether congressionally imposed restrictions on Indian allotments have been removed arise under Section 1331 even when state-law defenses may defeat the claims.

Begay v. Albers · filed 1983-11-14

We hold that questions involving whether restrictions imposed by Congress upon Indian allotments have been removed so as to extinguish the Indian allottee’s claim of equitable title are “federal questions” within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, even though state law defenses are available to defeat the Indian claims.

Section 1331 supported jurisdiction over the Navy’s declaratory counterclaim concerning water rights appurtenant to condemned land.

United States v. 129.4 Acres Of Land In Yuma County, Arizona, Fred W.. · filed 1986-05-08

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

Section 1331 requires a federally created right or immunity to be an essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action; federal origins of Indian land do not convert an ordinary trespass claim into a federal case.

United States of America Ex Rel. Yvonne Kishell, as of the Estate of Ruth M. Tibbets v. Turtle Mountain Housing Authorit · filed 1987-04-27

For a case to arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982), a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action. ... Even if the complaint were amended to plead violations of these statutes, we find that they could not serve as a basis for federal question jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a federal contractor’s claim that the government's debarment process lacked due process, legal authority, or basic fairness.

Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers · filed 1982-02-26

The Court has jurisdiction over this action by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... An allegation of facts which reveals an absence of due process, legal authority, or basic fairness in the method of imposing debarment presents a justiciable controversy.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a Section 1983 procedural-due-process claim.

Gilpin v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees · filed 1986-07-30

The Court finds that liability rests with the Defendants who have denied the Plaintiffs their rights to procedural due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction is appropriately premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits a civil action seeking return of property that was administratively forfeited without constitutionally adequate notice.

United States v. Mosquera · filed 1988-05-03

then petitioner could file a civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... In view of petitioner’s pro se status, however, we do not think petitioner should be denied relief just because he chose the wrong procedural vehicle. Petitioner’s “motion” should not have been denied on its face without further development. Consequently, the denial must be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Section 1331 permits review of a due-process challenge to the procedure used in an administrative forfeiture remission proceeding, but it does not permit circumvention of the bar against reviewing the forfeiture's merits.

Averhart v. United States · filed 1990-05-23

This claim does not challenge the DEA’s determination on the merits, but rather the nature of the adjudicatory process itself. As the issue presents a federal question, this court has jurisdiction to review the claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Although federal question jurisdiction supports a review of petitioners’ due process claim, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that petitioners failed to establish such a claim.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a federal due process challenge to an administrative forfeiture when the claim does not seek review of the merits of the forfeiture decision.

Dan Corbin Agee and Constance Agee, Husband and Wife v. United States of America, Ex Rel., Drug Enforcement Administrati · filed 1993-04-21

Because plaintiffs' due process claims do not go to the merits of the forfeiture decision, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review the federal due process question presented.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over federal takings and due process claims; a takings claimant need not exhaust state-court remedies first.

Williams v. Writer · filed 2025-07-28

These claims plainly “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Knick controls here, and the Court, accordingly, has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ takings and due process claims.

Section 1331(a) gives a district court jurisdiction to determine whether Patent Office action deprived an applicant of an enforceable right to a patent and to remedy resulting irreparable injury.

Sampson v. Dann · filed 1978-11-02(a)

If, as claimed, the notice of allowance and fee payment gave Sampson an enforceable right to a patent, the Court has equivalent jurisdiction.

Section 1331, together with patent and mandamus jurisdiction, provides subject-matter jurisdiction over an action challenging Patent Office administration of patent-term extensions.

Glaxo Operations UK Ltd. v. Quigg · filed 1989-02-17

The Court finds, and the parties concur, that subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question), 1338(a) (relating to patents) and 1361 (mandamus).

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction for a third-party protestor to seek judicial review of a PTO decision to issue or reissue a patent when the patent statute precludes that review.

Hitachi Metals, Ltd. v. Quigg · filed 1991-10-18

The Court disagrees. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Hitachi’s claims, because the comprehensive scheme Congress established to govern patent grants reveals Congress’s intent to preclude judicial review of PTO examination decisions at the behest of third parties protesting the issue or reissue of a patent.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a contract claim merely because the parties agreed to use language from federal regulations.

Adelman v. UAL, Inc. · filed 1996-05-29

Even if the defendants agreed to be bound by the language of Part 250, ... the plaintiffs claim arises under the state law cause of action for breach of contract—it does not arise under federal law.

A state-law contract action does not arise under Section 1331 merely because the contract invokes federal accounting standards that create no cause of action.

Matthews v. Town of Greeneville · filed 1991-05-02

In this case, we cannot conclude that the FERC accounting guidelines create any cause of action. Instead, this case involves the interpretation of a contract which invokes federal accounting standards. It is well settled that "the mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction."

A contract claim does not arise under Section 1331 merely because the plaintiff participates in a federal program or federal regulations apply to the contract; the outcome must pivot on interpreting or applying federal law.

Kunkler v. Fort Lauderdale Housing Authority · filed 1991-05-15

The mere fact that plaintiff was a participant in a program created by the federal government, or that HUD regulations apply to the contracts at issue does not require the pivotal interpretation of federal law necessary to confer jurisdiction.

A state-law contract claim does not arise under federal law for Section 1331 purposes merely because resolving the claim requires interpreting federal statutes or regulations incorporated into the contract.

J.A. Jones Construction Co. v. City of New York · filed 1990-12-19

The mere fact that a court necessarily must interpret federal law or federal regulations to determine the merits of a claim is insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 covers a contract claim when the agreement is inseparable from a federal statutory scheme and the asserted rights derive from federal statutes.

Schneble v. United States · filed 1985-03-13

As the rights asserted by Plaintiff herein derive from these federal statutes, Plaintiffs claim must be found to “arise under” the laws of the United States, as required for federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a dispute concerning a federally required transit-labor agreement when the agreement is infused with statutory prerequisites.

DIVISION 1235, AMALGAMATED TRANS. U. v. Metropolitan · filed 1979-08-31(a)

Thus, because a section 13(c) agreement is infused with statutory prerequisites, this Court finds that it has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a claim for breach of a labor-protective agreement required by the Urban Mass Transportation Act because that agreement is intertwined with federal statutory requirements.

Division 1212, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority · filed 1979-10-12

“[A] 13(c) Agreement is so intertwined with the federal statutory scheme that § 1331 subject matter jurisdiction must necessarily arise.” ... Although the matter is not without some controversy ... the Court is of the opinion that the approach adopted by the First, Seventh and Eighth Circuits is correct and that this Court has jurisdiction to hear this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction over the validity of an arbitration award or collective-bargaining agreement rendered through procedures required by an Urban Mass Transportation Act Section 13(c) agreement.

Division 1287, Amalgated Transit Union v. Kansas City Area Transportation Authority · filed 1980-02-21(a)

Accordingly, this Court concludes that this action arises under § 13(c) of the UMTA and, therefore, that this Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (1976).

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction over disputes concerning federal reclamation contracts because federal law governs the United States’ rights and duties under those contracts.

Barcellos & Wolfsen, Inc. v. Westlands Water District · filed 1980-04-25(a)

“As to the rights and duties of the United States under the contracts, these are matters of federal law on which this Court has final word.” ... For all of the foregoing reasons, the Motion of the Federal Defendants to Dismiss the plaintiffs’ Complaint and the Counterclaim and Cross-Claims of Westlands are denied.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction when deciding a contract dispute requires interpreting a federal regulation governing due-on-sale clauses.

Williams v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Arlington · filed 1981-05-26

... a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 has been raised. The deed of trust in that case was executed on April 27, 1977, well after the June 8, 1976 effective date of regulations of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (“FHLBB”), originally codified as 12 C.F.R. § 545.6-11(f) and (g) and recodified in 1980 as 12 C.F.R. § 545.8-3(f) and (g).

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction to enforce federally approved labor-protective agreements required by the Urban Mass Transportation Act.

Division 1235, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Metropolitan Transit Authority · filed 1981-06-03

The District Court, D.C., 477 F.Supp. 1027, relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, assumed jurisdiction over the controversy. ... Suffice it to say that the District Judge’s resolution of the essential jurisdictional and substantive questions is entirely consistent with our approach in ... and is hereby affirmed.

Section 1331 presents a federal question when a mortgage dispute requires interpreting federal regulations governing due-on-sale clauses.

Williams v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Arlington · filed 1981-07-07

However, in the case of Williams v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Arlington, a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 has been raised. The deed of trust in that case was executed on April 27, 1977, well after the June 8, 1976 effective date of regulations of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (“FHLBB”), originally codified as 12 C.F.R. § 545.6-11(f) and (g) and recodified in 1980 as 12 C.F.R. § 545.8-3(f) and (g).

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a union action to enforce a federally required labor-protective agreement under the Urban Mass Transportation Act.

Local Division 732, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority · filed 1981-07-17

This Court has jurisdiction to hear actions of this sort pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 covers a private suit to enforce a federally required labor-protection agreement when Congress mandated both compliance with the agreement and a federal remedy for its breach.

Division 587, Amalgamated Transit Union, Afl-Cio, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Defendan · filed 1981-11-24

Careful review of the authorities persuades us that much more is involved here than simple congressional authorization to contract coupled with governmental approval of contractual provisions. Congress in § 13(c) did not merely authorize agreements to preserve collective bargaining rights of employees. It required them. ... We agree with the First Circuit’s statement that, by requiring labor agreements under § 13(c), “Congress implicitly mandated both compliance with those arrangements and a federal remedy for their breach.”

For a contract claim to arise indirectly under federal law under Section 1331(a), federal law must compel both entry into the contract and inclusion of the contractual provision allegedly breached.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Liberty Trucking Co. · filed 1981-12-17(a)

It is true that such a chain of indirection may support federal subject matter jurisdiction. But the exact nature of the link between (1) and (2), between statute and contract, is critical. That link must be mandatory. ... The defendant must have been obliged by the statute to enter into the contract. Moreover, the particular provision must be present in the contract because the statute compels its presence there. ... Because Title VII fails to provide the necessary ingredient of compulsion and because no other act of Congress is pointed to, as the source of compulsion upon Liberty to enter into the conciliation agreement, the chain of indirection is insufficient as well to support jurisdiction under § 1337 and § 1331(a).

A common-law breach of a federally required transit labor agreement does not arise under federal law for Section 1331 purposes when Congress did not make breach a statutory violation or grant federal jurisdiction over enforcement actions.

Local Division 732, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority · filed 1982-01-29

We conclude that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case. ... We simply do not find the requisite indication of congressional intent to vest in federal courts jurisdiction over actions for breach of 13(c) agreements.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a federal employee’s contract claim merely because the contract incorporates federal statutory language; federal choice of law is distinct from jurisdiction, and the plaintiff must assert a federal right of action.

Beverlin v. Internal Revenue Service · filed 1983-11-03

The fact that parties include the language of a federal law in their contract does not raise a breach of such contract to a “civil action arising under the Constitution laws or treaties of the United States,” even though an interpretation of the contract will involve interpretation of language that is also a federal statute. ... While such reasoning is attractive, it fails to differentiate between the question of choice of law and the issue of jurisdiction. ... Plaintiff asserts that various statutes have been violated, but points to no provision that expressly or implied gives him a right to assert an action under § 1331.

A dispute under a federal flood-insurance policy arises under federal law within Section 1331 and is governed by federal law.

Quesada v. Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency · filed 1983-12-29

This action having “arisen under” an applicable federal law, the general federal jurisdictional provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 applies and it is therefore appropriate to apply federal law.

A federal employee’s private contract claim against a FEHBP plan carrier for unpaid benefits does not arise under federal law when no federal statute governs the participant’s contractual entitlement.

Mooney v. Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania · filed 1988-02-23

... the case here involves a contract entered into between private parties; there is no federal question apparent on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint. Furthermore, there is no federal statute that has any relevance to the issue of whether the plaintiff was entitled to benefits under the terms of his agreement with the defendants. The FEHBP merely sets forth the manner in which the OPM will grant private health plan providers a franchise to provide benefits to federal employees and the rules which the providers must follow in doing so. This case presents a question of contract interpretation that will be governed by Pennsylvania contract law and not by the provisions of the FEHBP.

Section 1331 does not create federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract dispute merely because the contract concerns a federally regulated housing project or mentions required HUD concurrence.

Lower Brule Construction Co. v. Sheesley's Plumbing & Heating Co. · filed 1988-03-30

Mere regulation of contracts related to low income housing projects is insufficient to create a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... This action for the determination of rights under the letter of credit is purely a matter of state contract law. The fact that HUD regulated the project and was required to concur upon modification or cancellation of the letter is insufficient to give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not cover an employee’s retaliation claim against a private federal contractor merely because the contractor’s agreement is governed by federal law when the employee has no rights under that agreement.

Quarles v. Colorado Security Agency, Inc · filed 1988-04-08(a)

He was employed by a private entity who happened to have a contract with a federal agency to provide security in a building to which he was assigned. Assuming that the contract between HUD and Colorado is governed by federal law, Quarles had no rights under that contract. ... Because we find that federal jurisdiction is lacking, we need not address the at-will-employee issue.

Section 1331 does not cover a state-law contract claim merely because the consideration for the contract involved a federally regulated spousal waiver.

Vilas v. Lyons · filed 1988-11-16

That claim is to be resolved by the state common law principles of contract and does not call for any interpretation, construction, or application of federal law to resolve. The mere fact that the consideration given by Mrs. Vilas for the annuity that was promised was a spousal waiver is insufficient to make this claim an action arising under federal law.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a dispute whose resolution requires interpreting a contract between the United States and a private party because that interpretation presents a federal issue.

United States v. Benton · filed 1990-02-01

The applicable Missouri statutes are unambiguous. It is the contractual relationship between the United States and Olin that lies at the heart of this case. Only by interpreting and construing that relationship can the Court determine whether Missouri can lawfully require Olin to pay sales and use taxes on personal property purchased pursuant to the contract. The interpretation of a contract between the United States and another party is a federal issue.

A contract dispute does not arise under Section 1331 merely because the contract is federally regulated or uses a HUD-prescribed form when state law governs the parties’ obligations and no significant federal interest requires federal common law.

1610 CORP. v. Kemp · filed 1991-01-02

Moreover, the fact that a contract is subject to federal regulation does not establish that its interpretation and aspects of its performance are governed by federal law. ... Similarly, the mere fact that a contract involves a pre-printed form prescribed by HUD, does not signify that a controversy over its terms arises under federal law. ... This Court finds that plaintiff’s contract claims and the interpretation of the contractual obligations of the parties are governed by state law. Therefore, this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s contract claims under section 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over suits to enforce contracts with federal agencies because those suits arise under federal common law.

Jackson Square Associates v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development · filed 1992-08-10

Plaintiff seeks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which states: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States.” It claims that this action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1437f, pursuant to which the HAP contract was formed, and federal common law. The court agrees. “Suits to enforce contracts with federal agencies are governed by federal common law ... and as a result arise under federal law for purposes of section 1331.”

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when interpreting a contract for a gaming establishment on tribal land involves federal laws governing the establishment.

Tom's Amusement Co., Inc. v. Cuthbertson · filed 1993-02-05

The interpretation of contractual provisions involving gaming establishments on the Reservation involves federal question issues pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim to collect unpaid telephone charges when the claim rests on state-law contract or quantum meruit principles and does not require deciding the validity, construction, or effect of a federal statute.

MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Credit Builders of America, Inc. · filed 1993-02-09

This case involves MCI’s ability to recover on a contract or its ability to recover in quantum meruit. It does not involve the validity, construction, or effect of the Communications Act or any other federal statute. Actions for breach of contract and recovery in quantum meruit have their source in state law, and are consequently not entitled to federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a claim based solely on breach of a contract with a federal agency.

York Associates, Inc. v. Secretary of Housing & Urban Development · filed 1993-03-01

However, federal question subject matter jurisdiction' exists. only for “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The contracts and guaranty agreements among the parties are not laws or treaties of the United States, and accordingly, a violation of those agreements alone does not create a federal question.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim based on statutory obligations even when the plaintiff pleads it as a contract claim.

Weinfield v. United States of America · filed 1993-11-04

Although Weinfield pleaded a contract claim, we conclude that the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a contract and arbitration dispute merely because an Indian tribe is a party or the contract concerns Indian property.

GNS, INC. v. Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska · filed 1994-05-03

The Managers have pleaded claims of breach of contract and refusal to arbitrate. The court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction simply because one of the parties is an Indian tribe and the case involves Indian property or contracts.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a local contract dispute merely because the project received federal funds and used HUD-authorized contract forms.

Virgin Islands Housing Authority v. Coastal General Construction Services Corp. · filed 1994-06-24

Even if Coastal's complaint contained assertions respecting the use of federal funds in the construction project and the adoption of contractual forms authorized by HUD, federal question jurisdiction would still not be established.

Section 1331 does not overcome the Eleventh Amendment barrier to suit.

Litton Industries, Inc. v. Rafael Hernandez Colon · filed 1978-11-20(a)

The district court was also correct in ruling that adding 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to the complaint did not avoid the jurisdictional impact of the eleventh amendment.

Section 1331 does not abrogate a state university’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from a damages claim alleging a direct Fourteenth Amendment cause of action.

Bailey v. Ohio State University · filed 1980-04-10

Congress did not enact 28 U.S.C. § 1331 pursuant to § 5 of the fourteenth amendment, and a federal court has no similar power to abrogate eleventh amendment immunity by recognizing a damage remedy for a constitutional wrong.

Section 1331 does not overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity for damages or injunctive claims against a state or its agencies.

O'CONNOR v. State of Nev. · filed 1981-01-26

However, plaintiff has also asserted Title 28, U.S.C., § 1331 as a jurisdictional basis for this suit. Defendants State Bar of Nevada and the Nevada Supreme Court argue that the Eleventh Amendment bars the plaintiff’s claims for damages and injunctive relief. It is clear that under the Eleventh Amendment a state or its agencies cannot be sued without their consent.

Section 1331 cannot supply jurisdiction over a private damages suit against a state or an arm of the state when the Eleventh Amendment bars the action.

Holladay v. State of Mont. · filed 1981-01-30

Yet the nature of these alleged torts, all civil rights violations, also suggests jurisdiction of a “federal question” under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976) or of a civil rights violation under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (1976). However, no matter which of these jurisdictional statutes plaintiff actually wishes to rely on, none of the statutes can supply this Court with jurisdiction over the State of Montana or over the State Department of Institutions.

Section 1331 does not overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity for a direct Fourteenth Amendment claim against a state university and its governing board.

Kompara v. Board of Regents of the State University · filed 1982-09-22

Finally, plaintiff contends that even if the Board of Regents and ETSU are not section 1983 “persons,” she is still entitled to redress pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for violations of the fourteenth amendment. Plaintiff does not, however, proffer any explanation as to why the eleventh amendment does not apply here as well, so plaintiff’s effort to rely on fourteenth amendment grounds does not require a different result as to the status of ETSU and the Board of Regents. Consequently, defendants ETSU and Board of Regents shall be dismissed from this action. Plaintiff’s complaint against the individual defendants shall proceed.

Section 1331 does not abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity because it contains no expression of congressional intent to do so.

Los Angeles Branch Naacp v. Los Angeles Unified School District · filed 1983-09-01

Neither 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor § 1343, nor 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contains an expression of Congressional intent to abrogate California's immunity. Therefore none operates to lift the Eleventh Amendment bar.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a federal claim remains after an improperly joined, immune state defendant is dismissed, so the presence and dismissal of that defendant do not require remand.

Stephans v. State of Nev. · filed 1988-04-25

It is clear to this Court that a state court would not find that the plaintiff has stated a valid cause of action against the State of Nevada. The State of Nevada is not properly a defendant to this action and shall be dismissed. This Court retains subject matter jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question). Remand shall be denied.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a Section 1983 action against a state official is limited by the Eleventh Amendment to claims for prospective injunctive relief.

Connecticut Legal Services, Inc. v. Heintz · filed 1988-06-16

The court has jurisdiction over the suit by virtue of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. That jurisdiction is limited, however, by virtue of the Eleventh Amendment to plaintiff’s claims of prospective injunctive relief. ... Its claims for damages and other retroactive relief are barred.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a Title IX claim against a state when Congress has removed the state's immunity from that suit.

Sharif Ex Rel. Salahuddin v. New York State Education Department · filed 1989-02-07

Moreover, Congress has specifically provided that a state shall not be immune from suit under Title IX. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (4).

Sections 1331 and 1343 do not overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity to establish jurisdiction over a state agency.

Donaldson v. Illinois State Board of Education · filed 1990-02-15

Plaintiff alleges that jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Plaintiff can use neither of those sections, however, to establish jurisdiction in this Court over the Illinois State Board of Education. ... Thus, it is clear that this Court has no jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim against the Illinois State Board of Education and that the Board should be dismissed as a Defendant.

Section 1331 original jurisdiction over a case arising under federal law is not destroyed by a potential Eleventh Amendment bar to one claim.

Wisconsin Department of Corrections v. Schacht · filed 1998-06-25

But, where original jurisdiction rests upon the Statute’s grant of “arising under” jurisdiction, the Court has assumed that the presence of a potential Eleventh Amendment bar with respect to one claim, has not destroyed original jurisdiction over the case.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction without abrogating states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Ramos v. Nebraska · filed 2005-10-17

Federal district courts also have original jurisdiction "of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.A, § 1331 (West 1993). These jurisdictional statutes do not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, either.

Eleventh Amendment immunity strips a court of federal-question jurisdiction that would otherwise be available under § 1331.

Williams v. University of Maryland College Park · filed 2023-08-29

Since Eleventh Amendment immunity strips the Court of federal question jurisdiction that would otherwise be available under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court also lacks supplemental . jurisdiction under § 1367 over any of Williams’ remaining claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, and an Eleventh Amendment immunity defense does not defeat that jurisdiction.

Adams v. Grossmont Cuyamaca Community College District · filed 2024-03-15

And federal courts have “jurisdiction” over “all civil actions arising under” federal law, such as many claims here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Any immunity defense does not affect this Court’s jurisdiction.

An executive order not issued under congressional authority is not a law of the United States for § 1331 purposes and cannot support a private federal action under that statute.

Kodish v. United Airlines, Inc. · filed 1979-01-23

I conclude that an Executive Order which is not promulgated pursuant to Congressional authority is not a “law” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and that a private right of action under § 1331 may not be founded upon such an Order.

Section 1331(a) supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over a challenge to the federal government's application of an executive order.

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Friedman · filed 1979-12-28(a)

Subject matter jurisdiction is present pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

An executive order regulating federal labor-management relations is not a law of the United States that supports jurisdiction under § 1331.

Leath v. Stetson · filed 1982-09-07

During the period in question, Executive Order No. 11491, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 7301, 7101 (1976), regulated labor-management relations with respect to employees in the federal service. The Executive Order is not a law of the United States for purposes of giving district courts jurisdiction under the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976). See, e.g., Manhattan-Bronx Postal Union v. Gronouski, 350 F.2d 451, 456 (D.C.Cir.1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 978, 86 S.Ct. 548, 15 L.Ed.2d 469 (1966); Kuhn v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 570 F.2d 757, 760-61 (8th Cir. 1978); Local 1498, American Federal of Government Employees v. American Federation of Government Employees, 522 F.2d 486, 491 (3d Cir. 1975); National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1263 v. Commandant, Defense Language Institute, 493 F.Supp. 675, 681 n. 14 (N.D.Cal.1980). Further, in Vaca v. Sipes, the Supreme Court created the right of contribution against private sector unions by implication, 386 U.S. at 195-98, 87 S.Ct. at 919-21, and a waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be implied, United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538, 100 S.Ct. 1349, 1352, 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980).

A state-law third-party-beneficiary claim arises under federal law for Section 1331 when enforcement and construction of the contract are controlled by federal law.

Fate Terry v. Northrup Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc. · filed 1986-04-22

Since federal law controls the enforcement and construction of executive order conciliation agreements, resolution of appellees' cause of action, based on their status as third-party beneficiaries of the agreement, will require interpretation and application of federal law. Thus, even though the right and the remedy of appellees' cause of action are created by state law, their cause of action, nonetheless, "arise[s] under federal law" for purposes of section 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on an executive order that does not implement or effectuate the statute authorizing it.

Affinity Empowering, Inc. v. Eurofins Scientific, Inc. · filed 2022-10-11

The designs of Executive Order 13,996 and of the pilot program do not suggest an attempt to implement or effectuate § 301. In other words, § 301 permitted Executive Order 13,996’s adoption, but the Order did not further § 301’s implementation (e.g., it did not outline rules for permissible delegations under § 301). As such, the Order does not grant federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a Commodity Exchange Act claim when the Act implies a private right of action.

Christensen Hatch Farms, Inc. v. Peavey Co. · filed 1981-01-13

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ commodities law claim involves a federal question, over which this court has jurisdiction. Defendants’ motions to dismissal are without merit.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that the NASD violated § 19(g)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act by misapplying its arbitration rules.

Raymond James & Associates, Inc. v. National Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc. · filed 1994-02-09

There is no subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because there no federal question arising under § 19 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over Medicare Part A reimbursement challenges barred by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).

New Jersey Speech-Language-Hearing Ass'n v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America · filed 1982-12-03

We adopt the position expressed by the Second, Fifth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits, and find that there is no federal question jurisdiction over a challenge to a reimbursement decision made under Part A of the Medicare Act. The “sweeping and direct” language of § 405(h), which states that “no action” shall be brought in federal district court to recover a claim under the Act, mandates this holding.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over challenges to Medicare provider termination decisions because 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) bars its use.

Americana Healthcare Corp. v. Schweiker · filed 1982-10-08

This court began its analysis of the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by recognizing that consistent with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975), 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) precludes the use of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a jurisdictional basis for challenging Medicare provider termination decisions. ... This holding is applicable to the cases at bar and precludes the district court from establishing subject matter jurisdiction over the cases based upon federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over statutory claims arising under the Medicare Act when § 405(h) bars them.

Archbishop Bergan Mercy Hospital v. Heckler · filed 1985-03-18

For purposes of section 1331 jurisdiction, these claims must be viewed separately. ... In this case plaintiff’s statutory claims clearly arise under the Medicare Act. ... Plaintiff’s statutory claims, then, are clearly barred by section 405(h).

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction for these challenges to the termination of Medicare or Medicaid provider agreements because 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) precludes federal-question jurisdiction.

Americana Healthcare Corp. v. Schweiker · filed 1982-08-18(a)

This holding is applicable to the cases at bar and precludes the district court from ... establishing subject matter jurisdiction over the cases based upon federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over Medicare claims subject to administrative channeling when a provider bypasses available review and the no-review exception does not apply.

Elevate Care Country Club Hills, LLC v. Kennedy, Secretary of United States Department of Health and Human Services, in · filed 2025-09-30

Because Plaintiff did not present its claims to the Secretary and does not show that its claims are excepted from the channeling requirement found in Section 405(g) as incorporated into the Medicare Act, Plaintiff cannot bring its claims within this Court’s federal question jurisdiction as it contends.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a Medicare claim under the “no review at all” exception when administrative review remains available.

Myndfull Care Management California v. Becerra · filed 2024-12-30

The “no review at all” exception is inapplicable here.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an APA claim subject to the Medicare Act’s channeling provisions.

Pawlowski v. Becerra · filed 2022-03-02

For all the reasons stated above, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over Dr. Pawlowski’s APA claim because of the channeling provisions of the Medicare Act.

Section 1331’s grant of federal-question jurisdiction can be displaced by a statutory scheme that channels agency challenges through administrative review and then to a court of appeals.

State of Florida v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services · filed 2024-05-31

District courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Sometimes, however, “[a] special statutory review scheme . . . may preclude district courts from exercising jurisdiction over challenges to federal agency action.” Axon Enter., Inc. v. FTC, 598 U.S. 175, 185 (2023). ... The Court consequently lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Florida’s claims and dismisses this case without prejudice.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over APA challenges to federal agency action unless another statute precludes judicial review.

Agyeman v. Bondi · filed 2025-09-17

But § 1331’s grant of jurisdiction does not apply where a statute “specifically bars judicial review in the district court.” Robbins, 780 F.2d at 42; Califano, 430 U.S. at 105 (Section 1331 “confer[s] jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action” “subject only to preclusion-of-review statutes”); see 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1) (the APA does not apply “to the extent that . . . statutes preclude judicial review”).

Section 1331 does not provide district court jurisdiction over a Medicare provider reimbursement claim when the Medicare Act incorporates § 405(h)’s bar, even if the claim raises a constitutional challenge.

South Windsor Convalescent Home, Inc. v. David Mathews, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare · filed 1976-07-27

The applicability of the Salfi holding to the present case is readily apparent and cannot be escaped in view of the parallelism between the two cases. Here, as in Salfi, the plaintiff seeks to recover payments allegedly due under the Act, claiming that a regulation retroactively disallowing these payments violates the Fifth Amendment. Yet, despite the constitutional underpinning of plaintiffs’ claims, Salfi made clear that § 405(h) bars § 1331 as a basis for federal judicial review.

Section 1331(a) does not provide jurisdiction over a Medicare provider reimbursement challenge brought before the provider uses the Act’s administrative review process, even when the challenge raises constitutional claims.

Rhode Island Hospital v. Califano · filed 1978-02-24(a)

Plaintiff’s additional contention is that, since the administrative process is not constitutionally equipped to deal with the challenges involved here, this Court does have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... Likewise, Plaintiff’s contention here must fail.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to review agency action when Congress has precluded that review.

Chaun-Fa v. Kiley · filed 1978-10-19

The only jurisdictional basis alleged by plaintiffs in their complaint is 28 U.S.C. section 1331. This section confers jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action, subject, however, to preclusion of review statutes created by Congress. ... This exception to judicial review of agency decisions clearly applies here.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over these constitutional claims against the Medicare Act because the Act incorporates a provision precluding district court review.

Unihealth Services Corp. v. Califano · filed 1979-02-07

Consideration of the Fifth Circuit en banc decision in MacDonald Foundation, Inc., supra, and its more recent decision in The American Association of Councils of Medical Staffs of Private Hospitals, Inc. (CMS) v. Califano, 575 F.2d 1367 (5th Cir. 1978) leads to the inescapable conclusion that this Court has no federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over the present action.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a Medicare reimbursement claim when the Medicare Act supplies an exclusive review procedure, even if the provider cannot meet that procedure’s amount-in-controversy requirement.

Westchester Management Corporation v. United States Department Of Health And Human Services · filed 1991-11-05

The better construction requires that Westchester Management pursue the exclusive jurisdictional grant within the Medicare Act. ... We determine that subject-matter jurisdiction may not be based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1346.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over Medicare claims merely because the administrative appeals backlog delays review.

Supreme Home Health Services v. Azar · filed 2020-05-15

But we recently held that the delay caused by the “colossal backlog in Medicare appeals” is not enough to provide jurisdiction ... under § 1331. Family Rehab, 886 F.3d at 505. Based on our precedent, the district court’s determination that federal-question jurisdiction did not exist was not in error (and was certainly not plain error).