28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction to decide whether federal law deprives a tribal court of jurisdiction over an action.

Montileaux · filed 2025-10-22

However, Mazaska’s complaint nevertheless properly invokes this Court’s jurisdiction to determine whether the tribal court is without jurisdiction to hear Montileaux’s tribal court action. As the Supreme Court explained, a federal district court may, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, determine whether federal law has divested a tribal court of jurisdiction to consider an action in tribal court and, thus, whether an injunction should issue.

Section 1331 does not confer federal jurisdiction over a tribe or tribal court in this suit alleging a violation of the Indian Civil Rights Act.

R. J. Williams Co. v. Fort Belknap Housing Authority · filed 1981-03-20(a)

Plaintiffs alleged jurisdiction over the Tribal Court under the following bases: 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity jurisdiction; 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), federal question jurisdiction; 42 U.S.C. § 1983, civil rights claim in conjunction with 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3); and 25 U.S.C. § 1302, the Indian Civil Rights Act (“ICRA”). Since there is little question that the first three cited statutes do not confer federal jurisdiction over a tribe or tribal court, the only remaining issue is whether the ICRA gives this court jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to determine the limits of a tribal court’s jurisdiction when that question arises under federal law.

Ninigret Development Corp. v. Narragansett Indian Wetuomuck Housing Authority · filed 2000-03-22

That question, therefore, is a federal question within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over challenges to tribal court authority even when the challenge rests on contract terms.

Stifel, Nicholaus & Co. v. Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians · filed 2015-11-24

Following the lead of our sister circuits, therefore, we agree with Godfrey that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider Godfrey’s challenge to tribal court jurisdiction, even though that challenge is rooted in the lan- guage of the Bond Documents.

Section 1331 grants federal courts jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law but does not itself bar state courts from hearing claims with embedded federal issues.

in Re Haynes and Boone, LLP and Patrick L. Hughes · filed 2012-07-26

In contrast to section 1331, which merely describes an affirmative grant of power for federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over cases “arising under” federal law,... section 1338(a) both grants power for federal ... courts to exercise jurisdiction over cases “arising under” patent law... and also has a converse effect on the jurisdiction of state courts, which are specifically forbidden from exercising jurisdiction over the same scope of claims.

Section 1331 grants federal courts original jurisdiction over actions arising under federal law but does not determine whether a complaint may be brought in state court.

Hayton · filed 2025-12-11

Section 1331, as a federal procedural mechanism, has no bearing on whether Hayton’s complaint may be brought in a state court.

Section 1331, together with the Judicial Code's other general jurisdictional grants, provides subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce administrative subpoenas without a statute specifically authorizing judicial enforcement.

United States v. Andrew E. Hill and J.E. Pinkerton, United States of America v. Dennis Juren, United States of America v · filed 1982-11-09

Although statutes creating administrative subpoena powers often contain provisions specifically authorizing judicial enforcement orders, ... the Judicial Code’s general jurisdictional provisions, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), ... render such specificity unnecessary. ... We conclude, therefore, that sections 1331,1337(a), and 1345 provide subject matter jurisdiction for proceedings to enforce subpoenas issued under section 645 of the DOEOA by the Secretary of Energy or his duly authorized agents.

Section 1331 covers a suit to enforce congressional subpoenas because the subpoena power derives implicitly from Article I of the Constitution.

COMMITTEE ON JUD., US HOUSE OF REPRES. v. Miers · filed 2008-07-31

Because this dispute concerns an allegation that Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten failed to comply with duly issued congressional subpoenas, and such subpoena power derives implicitly from Article I of the Constitution, this case arises under the Constitution for purposes of § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a House committee’s claim to enforce a congressional subpoena when the committee’s subpoena power derives from Article I.

Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn II · filed 2019-11-25

Thus, insofar as the Judiciary Committee’s power to issue subpoenas “derives implicitly from Article I of the Constitution,” Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 64, which it appears that DOJ does not contest, the subpoena-enforcement claim that the Judiciary Committee has brought to this Court for resolution likewise arises under the Constitution for the purpose of section 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim for breach of a settlement agreement merely because the settlement arose from federal litigation.

Huspon v. Indiana State Prison · filed 2024-10-08

Similarly, a breach of the settlement agreement does not present a federal question. Even if a settlement agreement is the result of federal litigation, enforcement of a settlement agreement is typically a separate matter from the underlying lawsuit.

A claim to enforce a settlement of a federal discrimination charge does not arise under § 1331 when the dispute concerns only the parties' contractual intent rather than the construction of federal law.

Weills v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. · filed 1982-11-30

Plaintiffs rights derived from Title VII lost their federal nature when they became embodied in the settlement contract. The issues raised by this action focus on the parties’ intent and understanding of the rights created by that settlement agreement, not a right that will be supported or defeated depending on the construction or effect given Title VII.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a third-party beneficiary claim arising from a federal agency’s settlement agreement rather than from the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Lavapies v. Bowen · filed 1988-05-24

This claim arises under an agreement between the HHS and various organizations including the American Medical Association and not under the laws, treaties or Constitution of the United States.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a claim to enforce a Title VII settlement agreement because of the federal interest in such settlements.

Melendez v. Horizon Cellular Telephone Co. · filed 1994-01-13

We therefore decline to dismiss Melendez’s claim of breach of contract because our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 continues in view of the federal interest in settlements of Title VII claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law breach-of-contract action to enforce a private settlement of a Title VII claim when the action does not arise under federal law.

Louie Morris, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. City of Hobart, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee · filed 1994-11-04

We hold that, because an action for breach of contract arising out of the private settlement of a Title VII claim does not arise under federal law, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement.

Section 1331 permits a court hearing federal discrimination claims to consider the enforceability of a settlement waiver or release raised as an affirmative defense.

I.K. v. School District of Haverford Township · filed 2013-08-14

We have an independent basis for federal jurisdiction to “enforce” this agreement here because the District raises the enforceability of the waiver/release provisions as an affirmative defense, not as a direct enforcement action, and we have jurisdiction over B.K’s federal discrimination claims pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim for breach of a patent settlement agreement when resolving the claim requires only contract interpretation and no resolution of federal patent law.

R&N Check v. Bottomline Tech. · filed 2013-11-15

The sole claim in R & N’s complaint arises out of New Hampshire’s common law, not federal patent law. And, its right to relief does not depend upon the resolution of any question of federal patent law. ... Consequently, R & N’s complaint does not invoke (or otherwise implicate) the court’s subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a) or 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim for breach of a state-court settlement agreement absent a basis for the claim to arise under federal law.

Rickmyer v. Browne · filed 2014-02-05

The Magistrate Judge concluded that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs breach-of-contract claim, and the Court agrees. 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. Plaintiff has not asserted such a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over claims arising from a private settlement agreement when no federal question is necessary on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.

Macias v. New Mexico Department of Labor · filed 2014-03-31

Here, all claims arise out of a private contract—the Agreement—between two parties, and no federal question need be stated on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim to enforce a federally approved consent judgment when the claim concerns state-law contractual obligations and does not require implementing or interpreting federal law.

Village of West Hampton Dunes v. New York · filed 2015-03-02

Therefore, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs claim for enforcement of the Consent Judgment does not present a federal questions for purposes of § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement when its asserted connection to federal law rests on an unsupported inference that a federal regulation incorporated the agreement.

Hajro v. Uscis · filed 2015-10-23

First, Plaintiffs argue that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review the Settlement Agreement because the Agreement was part of “separate guidance” adopted by USCIS under a federal regulation. ... The connection is too attenuated to serve as a basis for jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a federal agency settlement agreement when its alleged connection to a federal regulation and statute is too attenuated.

Hajro v. Uscis · filed 2016-01-19

First, Plaintiffs argue that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review the Settlement Agreement because the Agreement was part of “separate guidance” adopted by USCIS under a federal regulation. See Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Procedures, 68 Fed. Reg. 4056-01 (Jan. 27, 2003). To find jurisdiction on this ground, we would have to make two inferential leaps. First, we would have to accept that the federal regulation cited by Plaintiffs referencing “separate guidance” adopted by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) includes the 1992 Settlement Agreement. Then, we would have to infer that since the federal regulation incorporates the 1992 Settlement Agreement, it arises under the FOIA statute. Besides Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Settlement Agreement is “separate guidance” adopted by USCIS, there is no evidence or case law presented that DHS’s reference to “separate guidance” intended to include all settlement agreements the agency entered into with private parties. The connection is too attenuated to serve as a basis for jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a Title VII action regardless of whether a settlement agreement may defeat the plaintiff’s claims.

COMAN v. ACA COMPLIANCE GROUP · filed 2021-12-14

Contrary to ACA’s arguments, the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this Title VIJ and PHRA action—pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3)—regardless of whether the parties entered into a settlement agreement.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement resolving federal claims when enforcement does not implicate federal law and no independent basis for jurisdiction exists.

TRUSTEES AND FIDUCIARIES OF THE SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 25 NEW JERSEY ANNUITY FUND v. PRECISION AIR BALANCIN · filed 2022-05-31

and it appearing that because enforcement of the Settlement Agreement will not implicate ERISA or LMRA, the Court finds that there is no basis for subject matter jurisdiction, ... ORDERED that to the extent Plaintiffs can rectify the deficiencies identified in this Order, they may refile a renewed motion within thirty (30) days.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim to enforce a settlement agreement as a state-law contract.

Pickard · filed 2026-03-10

To the extent he seeks to bring a claim for breaching the settlement agreement as a contract, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction, as such claims are creatures of state law.

Section 1331 does not provide continuing jurisdiction over a state-law dispute alleging breach of a settlement agreement merely because the settled federal case was within federal jurisdiction.

Cross-Appellant v. Gayle Franzen, Cross-Appellees · filed 1985-11-13

The court would not have jurisdiction over the dispute merely by virtue of having had jurisdiction over the case that was settled. The violation of the settlement agreement would be a breach of contract remediable under state but not federal law, and therefore only in state court since the parties are not of diverse citizenship.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a new state-law action for breach of an oral settlement merely because the settlement arose from an earlier federal case; ancillary enforcement jurisdiction belongs in the original action.

Bartholomew v. Librandi · filed 1990-05-07

The present action has no independent jurisdiction grounds — the parties are not diverse and the case does not involve a question of federal law. The complaint merely states a cause of action for breach of an oral settlement agreement. ... Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. To extend a federal court’s ancillary jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements to federal civil actions, other than the original actions to which the settlement agreements applied, would in essence be creating a new basis of federal subject-matter jurisdiction and, thus, contrary to the concept of limited jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement merely because the underlying suit asserted a federal right.

Lucille v. City of Chicago · filed 1994-09-22

McCall-Bey disposes of the contention that just because the initial suit sought to vindicate a federal right, the court possesses federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to construe and enforce a contract ending the litigation.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that a party breached a settlement of federal litigation unless the later conduct states a new federal claim.

Kay v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago · filed 2008-10-27

There are post-settlement acts by the Board that injured Kay — the Board hasn’t paid what Kay says is her due — but failure to abide by a settlement could not be treated as a fresh claim under federal law without contradicting Kokkonen.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction to enforce a settlement of federal litigation against a public defendant when the court did not retain enforcement authority; describing the breach as retaliation does not create a new federal claim.

Kay, Gail v. Bd Educ City Chicago · filed 2008-10-27

Kay’s “retaliation” argument rests on her pre-settlement speech. That claim was extin- guished by the settlement and converted, as Kokkonen holds, into a claim under a contract. ... These decisions hold that an attempt to enforce a contract substantively against a state actor in federal court does not come within federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over a claim to enforce a settlement agreement merely because the agreement resolves claims arising under a federal statute.

M.R. v. District of Columbia · filed 2012-01-30

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, although the parties contracted to settle claims that arise under a specific federal statute, any claim for breach of that contract in this case would not itself raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a dispute to enforce a settlement agreement after the agreement resolves the underlying federal question.

ENVIRONMENTAL DEMOLITION GROUP, LLC v. MURRAY · filed 2021-02-10

Moreover, the settlement agreement resolved the federal question that gave this Court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See dkt. 1 at 2; See McCall-Bey, 777 F.2d at 1185. That leaves only enforcement of that agreement, and "[a] disagreement about whether parties to a settlement have honored their commitments is a contract dispute."

Section 1331 gives federal question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the substantive claim for relief, if any, arises under federal law.

Coalition for Safe Transit v. Bi-State Dev. Agency · filed 1991-11-25

Inasmuch as the plaintiffs and defendants are citizens of Missouri, the only possible basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction in this action is the presence of a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... On the basis of the foregoing, the Court concludes that plaintiffs' claim for relief arises, if at all, as an implied federal cause of action available to persons aggrieved by the actions of a quasi-federal agency. See 5 U.S.C. § 702 (1977); Seal and Co., Inc. v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 768 F.Supp. 1150, 1153 (E.D.Va.1991). Inasmuch as such a claim clearly arises under the laws of the United States, the Court concludes that plaintiffs' motion to remand should be denied.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the anticipated claim for insurance proceeds arises under state law and federal law supplies only a possible defense.

Hudson Insurance Company v. American Electric Corporation, a Florida Corporation, American Environmental Protection Corp · filed 1992-04-03

The federal CERCLA issues pressed by Hudson in its declaratory judgment complaint are mere potential defenses to Green River’s state-created cause of action. These possible federal defenses are insufficient to confer jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the claim the plaintiff anticipates arises under federal law.

Gillett Communications of Atlanta, Inc. v. Becker · filed 1992-10-30

To determine whether a claim falls within § 1331, the Court must determine whether “a federal cause of action would appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.” ... When faced with a declaratory judgment action, the court must determine whether the claim “anticipated by the declaratory judgment plaintiff arises under federal law.” ... Here, it clearly does. WAGA anticipates that both administrative and penal sanctions may be sought against it for violation of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction for an ERISA preemption declaratory judgment action when the declaratory plaintiff is not among the persons authorized to sue under ERISA § 502(a).

Albradco, Inc. v. Bevona · filed 1992-12-21

Since the issue at hand is a declaratory judgment claim, it must have a federal jurisdictional basis of its own. If the well-pleaded complaint rule would otherwise preclude a federal court from exercising jurisdiction, the declaratory judgment action may nevertheless be brought in federal court if the declaratory plaintiff claims ERISA preemption and both he and the plaintiffs in the suit that the declaratory judgment action anticipates are persons enumerated in ERISA § 502(a), which lists the class of persons who can commence an action under ERISA. ... Appellants here are shareholders. They are not among the enumerated parties. They could not originally have commenced an action under ERISA in the federal court. Appellants therefore cannot now claim that the court had subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action anticipating state-law insurance coverage claims, even when coverage concerns CERCLA liability.

American Policyholders Insurance Company v. Nyacol Products, Inc. · filed 1993-04-28

Ordinarily, a claim arises under federal law within the meaning of section 1331 if a federal cause of action appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. ... In fine, because the insurance dispute which American’s declaratory judgment action anticipates is a creature of state law and cannot be said to arise under federal law, original federal question jurisdiction— and, by extension, removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)—does not lie.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory action arising under the Supremacy Clause and federal laws protecting access to federal court from a state-court injunction.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Doe · filed 1994-11-03

Jurisdiction for this declaratory judgment action is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that, “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1994). This case arises under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States that define the jurisdiction of United States district courts.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the anticipated suit by the declaratory judgment defendant would arise under federal law.

Gnb Battery Technologies, Incorporated, Formerly Known as Gnb, Incorporated and Gnb Industrial Battery Company v. Gould, · filed 1995-09-06

In declaratory judgment cases, the well-pleaded complaint rule dictates that jurisdiction is determined by whether federal question jurisdiction would exist over the presumed suit by the declaratory judgment defendant.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action seeking to preempt a reasonably anticipated claim under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

Phc, Inc. v. Pioneer Healthcare, Inc. · filed 1996-02-12

A claim under section 43(a) is a federal cause of action, automatically invoking federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The question is whether the Pioneer companies’ letters made a section 43(a) claim against PHC a reasonable prospect. ... Thus, the district court had federal subject-matter jurisdiction as to count I.

Section 1331 permits federal question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the anticipated suit by the declaratory judgment defendant would arise under federal law.

Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n · filed 1996-08-27

Thus, federal question jurisdiction exists in a declaratory judgment action if the potential suit by the declaratory judgment defendant would arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the anticipated suit would arise under state law and federal law would enter only as a defense.

S1 IL304 Ltd. Liability Co. v. ANB Cust. for LG Ex Rel. Hynes · filed 1996-12-11

A federal question would enter the case only if SI asserted the protections of Section 1825(b), which it alleges have been assigned to it, as a defense to such an enforcement action. Consequently, no federal question jurisdiction would exist over such a suit, and therefore no federal question jurisdiction can exist in a declaratory action based on such a suit.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state’s declaratory judgment suit seeking to uphold the constitutionality of its own action, even if the defendant could bring a federal coercive suit.

State of Missouri v. Cuffley · filed 1997-06-16

In the only case we have located that is even remotely similar to the instant case, a federal district court reached the same conclusion we do today: a declaratory judgment suit brought by a state to uphold the constitutionality of its action is not within the federalquestion jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the asserted federal issue would arise only as a defense to the anticipated coercive action.

The Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Adams · filed 1997-08-19

Although the plaintiffs have asked this court to declare that Mutual “has paid the maximum amount of punitive damages allowable under the Constitution and laws of the State of Alabama and the United States Constitution,” this constitutes an affirmative defense to the displaced coercive action of the defendant, and does not convert Mutual’s complaint for declaratory relief into one raising a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an insurer’s declaratory judgment action merely because the underlying lawsuit included a federal claim.

Blue Ridge Insurance v. Stanewich · filed 1998-04-24

On appeal, both the Van Orts and Blue Ridge asserted that the basis of the district court’s jurisdiction over this declaratory judgment action was federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the underlying civil rights/tort action included a federal claim arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because this was obviously incorrect, see Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422 (9th Cir.1994), we raised sua sponte the issue of the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment claim when the threatened coercive action arises under state law and federal law would only be a defense.

Jubelirer v. Mastercard International, Inc. · filed 1999-09-17

Neither is there federal question jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claims. Any coercive claim by MBNA to collect the debt would be a state law contract claim over which there would be no original jurisdiction. The fact that plaintiff might have a defense based on Federal law to such a claim does not support jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when a coercive action by the defendant would arise under federal law, provided the declaratory action is justiciable.

Borg-Warner Protective Services Corp. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · filed 2000-01-04

In this case, had defendant EEOC brought a coercive action against Borg-Warner alleging that Borg-Warner’s use of the Arbitration Agreement violated Title VII, there is no doubt that this court would have had jurisdiction to hear the ease. Thus, the court has federal-question jurisdiction over Borg-Warner’s request for a declaratory judgment that its use of the compulsory arbitration agreement does not violate Title VII, and may hear the case if the action is justiciable.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action that recasts an anticipated federal defense to a private party’s threatened state-law suit as the plaintiff’s claim.

Northeast IL Railroa v. Hoey Farina & Downes · filed 2000-05-15

The precedent just outlined, however, precludes Metra from recharacterizing the claim to fit the well-pleaded complaint rule by means of the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action that asserts a federal preemption defense to a threatened state-law claim.

Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation, D/B/A Metra v. Hoey Farina & Downes · filed 2000-05-15

But these Supreme Court cases establish that a conflict between federal law and state law is not enough to confer subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the underlying controversy would present a federal question in a coercive suit brought by the declaratory judgment defendant, regardless of which party initiates suit.

Ameritech Benefit v. Communications Work · filed 2000-07-13

In our view, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1331. ... Had the aggrieved employees (here, class defendants) brought a suit to enforce Title VII and the Equal Pay Act against Ameritech, the district court would have had jurisdiction over the complaint because interpretation and application of these statutes present federal questions. ... Our basis for jurisdiction comes from the underlying controversy, not the particular party initiating suit.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action rests on the underlying federal controversy, regardless of which party initiates the suit.

Ameritech Benefit Plan Committee v. Communication Workers of America, Annette Foster-Hall, and Bernadette Bernabei v. Am · filed 2000-07-13

In our view, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Our basis for jurisdiction comes from the underlying controversy, not the particular party initiating suit.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory action anticipating a private party’s state-law claim that would not allege a federal cause of action.

Norfolk Southern v. Guthrie, James · filed 2000-11-15

Under Metra, the well-pleaded complaint rule of Louisville & Nashville Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908) applies because Lakin’s complaint would not allege a federal cause of action and thus federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1331 (the only type of statutory jurisdiction NS alleges) does not exist.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over an anticipatory declaratory action when a private declaratory defendant’s threatened claim arises only under state law.

Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. James E. Guthrie, Buddy W. Snyder, and Lakin Law Firm · filed 2000-11-15

However, Lakin’s claims against NS would be based only on state law, and thus no’ federal jurisdiction exists under § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the defendant could bring a coercive federal claim on the matter the plaintiff asks the court to declare.

Columbia Gas v. Drain · filed 2001-01-08

Because Columbia Gas’s complaint in its Second Declaratory Judgment Action seeks declaratory relief on a matter for which Drain could bring a coercive action against Columbia Gas aris- ing under federal law, we conclude the district court possessed subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the defendant could bring a coercive action arising under federal law against the plaintiff.

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation v. Deana Wing Field Drain · filed 2001-01-08

Thus, if the declaratory judgment plaintiff is not alleging an affirmative claim arising under federal law against the declaratory judgment defendant, the proper jurisdictional question is whether the complaint alleges a claim arising under federal law that the declaratory judgment defendant could affirmatively bring against the declaratory judgment plaintiff. ... If the answer to this question is yes, federal question jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory claim seeking redress for existing legislative impairment of a contract, rather than merely anticipating a defense to a threatened state action.

Lipscomb v. Columbus Municipal Separate School District · filed 2001-10-05

Since the state legislative action giving rise to Lipscomb’s claim is the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, Lipscomb’s complaint does not anticipate a state judicial action, it seeks redress for an existing harm.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action only when the defendant’s anticipated coercive action would necessarily arise under federal law.

Household Bank v. JFS GROUP · filed 2002-03-08

For the foregoing reasons, this court concludes that while the DJA does allow a plaintiff to precipitate a suit based on federal law, he may only do so where the anticipated coercive action would of necessity arise under federal law.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the defendant could have brought a coercive action presenting a federal question.

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Colón Rivera · filed 2002-05-09

Federal courts may properly take jurisdiction over declaratory judgment suits such as the present action “in which, if the declaratory judgment defendant brought a coercive action to enforce its rights, that suit would necessarily present a federal question.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a local government’s state-law action seeking a declaration that its regulations are constitutional despite possible federal constitutional objections.

Carlisle Township Board of Trustees v. Hynolds LLC · filed 2004-01-12

As in Bullitt, the plaintiff in the instant case is a government entity seeking declaratory and injunctive relief notwithstanding possible objections to the constitutionality of its statutes. As in Bullitt, the government entity must seek this relief in state court.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the defendant’s anticipated coercive claim necessarily arises under federal law.

Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Zayas · filed 2005-01-12

In the instant case, the anticipated claim arises under federal law. This is undisputed. The declaratory judgment defendant, Monroig, has counterclaimed alleging violations to the PMPA. Thus, we feel compelled to follow the language in Franchise Tax and assume jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires an independent federal question to support jurisdiction over an action seeking declaratory relief.

Simmons v. Nash · filed 2005-03-30

The Declaratory Judgment Act, is not an independent grant of jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 must have an independent source.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory-judgment claim asserting a federal defense to anticipated state-law claims.

Goodspeed Airport, LLC v. East Haddam Land Trust, Inc. · filed 2006-01-27

Those state-law claims do not arise under federal law, and accordingly, this claim fails to create federal-question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment claim when the threatened action would arise under federal law.

SAMUEL C. JOHNSON 1988 TRUST v. Bayfield County, WI · filed 2007-01-19

The only potential jurisdictional basis is 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which requires that an action arise under federal law. ... In the context of a declaratory judgment action, it is the character of the threatened court action which determines whether there is federal question jurisdiction. ... The threatened action here, a claim for injunctive relief entitling Bayfield County to establish a highway pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § 912, is an action arising under a federal statute over which this Court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment dispute underlying a petition to compel arbitration when the opposing party could bring a coercive action arising under federal law.

Community State Bank v. Strong · filed 2007-04-27

Instead, we held that “federal-question jurisdiction exists in a declaratory judgment action if the plaintiff has alleged facts in a well-pleaded complaint which demonstrate that the defendant could file a coercive action arising under federal law.” Id. at 1251. Thus, the jurisdictional question before us now becomes this: Do petitioners allege facts in a well-pleaded complaint which demonstrate that Strong could file a coercive action against them arising under federal law? We conclude that the answer is yes.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the defendant’s presumed claim arises under federal law, including when resolving a quiet title dispute requires interpreting federal statutes.

Samuel Johnson Trust v. Bayfield County, WI · filed 2008-04-02

Thus, the issue is whether the County’s presumed complaint against the Landowners, on its face, would include an action “arising under” federal law. ... The centrality of these federal laws’ interpretation to the proper adjudication of this suit gives rise to federal jurisdiction.

In a declaratory judgment action, § 1331 jurisdiction requires that the defendant could bring a coercive action arising under federal law; a copyright infringement action unavailable for lack of registration cannot supply that jurisdiction.

Stuart Weitzman, LLC v. Microcomputer Resources, Inc. · filed 2008-09-12

Accordingly, because the Declaratory Judgment Act cannot, of itself, confer jurisdiction upon the federal courts, and because MCR could not sustain an infringement action in federal court, we hold that such a hypothetical coercive action cannot provide the district court with subject matter jurisdiction over Weitzman’s declaratory suit.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the declaratory defendant could bring a federal coercive action over the same dispute, even if the declaratory plaintiff could not sue under the underlying federal statute.

Boeing Co. v. March · filed 2009-09-09

Thus, in a declaratory-judgment action, the well-pleaded complaint rule requires the court to assess whether a federal question would be present had the declaratory defendant filed suit against the declaratory plaintiff over the subject matter in the complaint. ... Applying these broad principles here, the court concludes that Boeing may use the Declaratory Judgment Act to “piggyback” on the class’s standing to sue under ERISA because the underlying dispute arises under federal law: whether an employer may make unilateral changes to retirees’ benefits under an ERISA welfare plan is entirely a federal question, requiring interpretation only of federal statutes and federal common law, and not state law.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the anticipated coercive suit would assert federal rights.

Great Clips, Inc. v. Hair Cuttery of Greater Boston, L.L.C. · filed 2010-01-05

A fair interpretation of Hair Cuttery's threats include the likely assertion of federal rights under the Lanham Act and this suffices to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action only if the declaratory judgment defendant’s presumed suit would present a federal question; a contract payment claim that is not completely preempted by ERISA does not qualify.

Concert Health Plan Insurance v. Houston Northwest Partners, Ltd. · filed 2010-03-03

In the context of a declaratory judgment, the well-pleaded complaint rule requires that jurisdiction be determined by whether the federal question would exist over the presumed suit by the declaratory judgment defendant. ... Thus, Houston’s claims would not be preempted by ERISA. As a result, I find no federal question presented here.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the natural plaintiff’s underlying claim arises under federal law.

Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n v. Gannett Co. · filed 2011-08-24

For these reasons, we are satisfied WIAA’s complaint for a declaratory judgment that its Media Policies are compatible with the First Amendment states a claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the defendant's own suit would present a significant federal-law question.

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. M & M Petroleum Services, Inc. · filed 2011-09-12

The district court exercised jurisdiction over Chevron’s action seeking a declaration that it complied with the PMPA in terminating its agreements with M&M under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201 and 2202. The district court’s exercise of fed- eral question jurisdiction was proper because a significant question of federal law under the PMPA would have been presented had M&M initiated the suit.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the complaint on its face states a claim under federal law.

Fiero v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. · filed 2011-10-05

On its face, the complaint states a claim under the Exchange Act. We have federal question jurisdiction to determine whether FINRA has authority to collect through judicial proceedings fines levied pursuant to the Exchange Act.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action unless the declaratory judgment defendant could bring a coercive federal-law action against the declaratory judgment plaintiff.

Allstate Insurance v. Nowakowski · filed 2012-03-23

In short, Allstate’s complaint in its state court action does not seek declaratory relief on a matter for which Nowakowski could bring a coercive action against Allstate arising under federal law; therefore, this Court concludes that it does not possess jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331 over the subject matter of the removed complaint.

Section 1331 gives jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action based on the federal character of the anticipated coercive claim, not a federal defense asserted by the declaratory plaintiff.

Devon Energy Production Co. v. Mosiac Potash Carlsbad, Inc. · filed 2012-08-22

In this situation, “[i]t is the character of [Mosaic’s] action, not [Devon’s] defense, that determines whether there is federal question jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the threatened breach-of-contract claim does not necessarily raise a federal issue.

Shore Bank v. Harvard · filed 2013-03-08

Therefore, the Court finds that the first alleged cause of action — Harvard’s threatened breach of contract claim — does not support this Court’s jurisdiction over the instant declaratory judgment action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory challenge alleging that a state statute violates constitutional due process even without an express citation to the Fourteenth Amendment.

Noatex Corp. v. King Construction of Houston LLC · filed 2014-05-14

Although Noatex’s complaint does not specifically cite to or reference the Fourteenth Amendment, its allegations ask whether Mississippi’s Stop Notice statute is facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied in violation of due process under the United States Constitution. ... Thus, based on the face of Noa-tex’s complaint, the Court is assured of its federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a landlord’s declaratory action to determine whether medical marijuana use is a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act.

Forest City Residential Management, Inc. v. Beasley · filed 2014-12-03

Here, Plaintiff alleges that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Defendant has requested a reasonable accommodation to use medical marijuana under the FHA. Plaintiff requests a declaration that medical marijuana use is not a reasonable accommodation under the FHA. The Court finds that this is a controversy arising under federal law and that federal question jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law insurance coverage dispute merely because the plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Certified Multi-media Solutions, Ltd. v. Preferred Contractors Insurance Co. Risk Retention Group, LLC · filed 2015-12-12

However, the Declaratory Judgment Act does not confer subject matter jurisdiction, and the parties do not raise any federal issue relating to the interpretation of the Policy. ... Therefore, the Plaintiffs claim does not “arise” under federal law, and 28 U.S.C. §■ 1331 is not applicable, to this case.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a trademark declaratory judgment action when the parties have a substantial, immediate dispute and the alleged infringer is engaged in potentially infringing conduct.

Uptown Grill, L.L.C. v. Michael Shwartz, et · filed 2016-03-23

Federal question jurisdiction exists over a declaratory judgment action based on trademarks where “the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment” and where the alleged infringer is actively engaged in conduct that could constitute trademark infringement. Vantage Trailers, Inc. v. Beall Corp., 567 F.3d 745, 748 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127, 127 S. Ct. 764, 771 (2007)). Uptown Grill’s declaratory judgment action satisfies this test.

Section 1331 does not allow federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action to rest on speculation that future events will make the anticipated claim cognizable in federal court.

Fastcase, Inc. v. Lawriter, LLC · filed 2017-01-26

Jurisdiction over the instant case cannot be premised on speculation that intervening or forthcoming events might create federal-question jurisdiction where none -existed at the time this lawsuit was filed.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when a federal issue would appear on the face of the complaint in a traditional damages or coercive action.

Ho-Chunk, Inc. v. Sessions · filed 2017-05-24

As for jurisdiction, there is federal-question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, for cases brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201–2, where a “federal issue would inhere in the claim on the face of the complaint that would have been presented in a traditional damage or coercive action.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state’s action seeking a declaration that its law is constitutional and not preempted by federal law.

Tex. v. Travis Cnty. · filed 2018-12-12

Franchise Tax Board therefore reinforces comity among federal and state courts and mandates dismissing Texas's declaratory relief action. ... Because we find that the district court lacked federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331, we need not reach the district court's Article III standing analysis.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the defendant could bring a coercive claim arising under federal law, even if the threatened action asserts only state-law claims.

The Maher Law Firm, P.A. v. Daniel J. Newlin, P.A. · filed 2019-08-16

Thus, this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 over Plaintiff's Lanham Act claim is not defeated by the type of claim Defendant alleged in its threatened coercive action.

In a declaratory judgment action, Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction if the defendant’s potential suit would arise under federal law.

Growgenix Solutions LLC v. Roberts International Agricultural Development · filed 2019-12-20

Thus, in such actions, federal question jurisdiction exists if the potential suit by the declaratory judgment defendant would arise under federal law, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide arising-under jurisdiction for a local government’s declaratory-judgment action seeking to establish the validity of its own law before enforcement against a potential federal-law challenge.

Saginaw Cty. v. STAT Emergency Med. Servs. · filed 2020-01-10

But counties and cities are not States. Does the same prohibition apply when local governments sue for declaratory relief and invoke §§ 1331 and 1337’s “arising under” jurisdiction? We think so.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law declaratory judgment action when the complaint does not present a federal issue that the defendant could raise in a coercive action.

COUNTY OF MOORE v. ACRES · filed 2020-03-20

The County has not sought a determination of an issue of federal law that Defendants could bring in their own coercive action.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory-judgment action asserting a defense to an anticipated suit only if that anticipated suit would arise under federal law.

Kraft v. Hatch · filed 2020-03-25

When a plaintiff asserts a defense to an anticipated action by the declaratory judgment defendant, as is the case here, there is federal question jurisdiction if the potential suit by the declaratory judgment defendant would arise under federal law.

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

Pitman Farms v. Kuehl Poultry LLC · filed 2020-05-14

Federal questions that, absent the availability of the declaratory-judgment procedure, would be raised only as defenses to state-law claims do not confer subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment counterclaim when the asserted federal issue would arise only as a defense to state-law claims.

Grohmann v. HCP Prairie Village KS OPCO LLC · filed 2021-01-29

The court concludes that defendants’ Counterclaim does not fall within § 1331—the court’s statutory grant of “arising under” subject matter jurisdiction.

In a declaratory judgment action, federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 depends on whether the defendant’s presumed complaint against the plaintiff would arise under federal law.

Roe v. Lombardo · filed 2022-01-12

Essentially, for this Court to have subject matter jurisdiction over an action where Plaintiff requests declaratory relief, this Court must have jurisdiction over the Defendants’ ‘presumed complaint” against Plaintiff (declaratory judgment defendant).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the defendant’s coercive action asserts a federal constitutional claim.

City of Highland Park v. Menge · filed 2022-03-21

Given Menge’s prior assertion of his procedural due process rights in the coercive action that he filed, there is federal question jurisdiction for the declaratory relief claim that the City asserts in this action.

A declaratory plaintiff’s ERISA preemption claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff lacks a right of action under ERISA.

Albradco, Inc. v. Bevona · filed 1992-04-03

Because the declaratory plaintiffs’ action does not arise under ERISA, they have not stated a federal question, and this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over their declaratory judgment ERISA claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the defendant has no possible coercive claim that would raise a federal question.

LA Indep Pharmacies v. Express Scripts · filed 2022-07-20

Because Express Scripts has no possible ground for a coercive lawsuit, no federal question arises for purposes of jurisdiction in LIPA’s declaratory judgment case.

Declaratory judgment claims seeking interpretations of federal statutes do not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 when the claims are not brought under those statutes.

Federal Trade Commission v. American Vehicle Protection Corp. · filed 2022-10-25

These claims are not brought under the FTC Act and Telemarketing Act; they seek rulings interpreting these two statutes. Thus, they cannot confer federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the defendant could bring a coercive claim under federal law.

Pearl Records, Inc. v. Conner · filed 2023-01-20

This Court has federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Because the Companies allege sufficient facts in their Complaint that Conner could file an action under the Copyright Act, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action based on an anticipated federal-law defense to a potential state-law claim.

BancCentral v. Hughbanks · filed 2023-02-01

An anticipated defense derived from 12 C.F.R. § 359 cannot confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the defendant could bring a claim arising under federal law against the plaintiff.

The City of Huntington v. The Lifehouse, Inc.et al · filed 2023-07-13

Federal district courts may exercise subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when a case or controversy arises under federal law. ... Labelled the “coercive action doctrine,” this principal holds that federal question jurisdiction exists “if the complaint alleges a claim arising under federal law that the declaratory judgment defendant could affirmatively bring against the declaratory judgment plaintiff.” ... Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED.

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

Sunvestment Energy Group NY 64 LLC v. National Grid USA Services Co., Inc. · filed 2023-08-11

The federal tax issue would arise only as a defense to the breach of contract claim which, under the well-pleaded complaint rule, is insufficient to invoke the federal question jurisdiction of a federal court. ... Accordingly, Count I brought under the DJA does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a declaratory judgment claim merely anticipates a defense to a state-law action.

Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito TuCoop v. 3G Green Gold Group LLC · filed 2023-11-07

Because Plaintiff’s sole claim is actually a preemptive defense to a state law claim, it has not met its burden to assert federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action based on FERPA’s parental access provisions, which create no private right of action.

Seattle School District No 1 v. Benshoof · filed 2024-07-19

The Court concludes that the parental access provisions of FERPA, like the nondisclosure provisions, do not provide a private right of action. The DJA cannot expand FERPA to provide such a right. The Court therefore does not have federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment claim when its displaced coercive action arises under federal law through ERISA complete preemption.

Thorn v. Buffalo Rock Company · filed 2024-09-09

Accordingly, ERISA completely preempts the displaced coercive action, and this court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over Thorn’s claim for declaratory judgment.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the underlying dispute presents a potential Lanham Act claim.

Group Dekko, Inc. v. Metro Light & Power, LLC · filed 2024-12-23

As a result, Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment claim presents a federal question consistent with the subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

Section 1331 permits federal question jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action when the complaint alleges a federal claim the declaratory judgment defendant could bring against the plaintiff.

Genesis Partners, Limited Partnership v. City of Bridgeport, West Virginia · filed 2025-09-16

Because Plaintiff’s Complaint plainly alleges a federal claim that Defendants could bring, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction in this declaratory judgment action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction based solely on a request for declaratory relief.

Wood · filed 2026-05-28

Thus, Wood’s Count I request for declaratory relief, without more, does not authorize this court to exercise federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331(a) supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory action asserting federal preemption, even when further relief is unavailable.

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

Regardless of whether, as in Wycoff, the equitable considerations necessary to support the issuance of an injunction are sufficiently alleged, jurisdiction under § 1331(a) clearly exists since a declaratory judgment action may be entertained even where further relief is unavailable.

The Declaratory Judgment Act does not itself provide federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Procraft Cabinetry, Inc. v. Sweet Home Kitchen & Bath, Inc. · filed 2018-09-24

To the extent that Procraft Cabinetry invokes federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, for its declaratory judgment claims (Doc. No. 278 at 23), the Declaratory Judgment Act does not confer federal question jurisdiction to federal courts.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the anticipated coercive action would arise under federal law; a federal defense alone does not suffice.

Stop the Olympic Prison v. United States Olympic Committee · filed 1980-02-15(a)

In the instant case, plaintiff’s assertion of first amendment claims is solely as a defense to a possible coercive action by the defendant: in the absence of such a coercive action, or at least some threat of such action, the mere invocation of the first amendment would not suffice to create a justiciable controversy. Hence these claims do not provide a basis for jurisdiction, and the Court must therefore determine whether the plaintiff faced a sufficiently real threat of a coercive action by the defendant under federal law.

Section 1331(a) does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory action asserting a federal defense to an anticipated state-law suit.

City of Saginaw v. Service Employees International Union, Local 446-M · filed 1983-11-03(a)

As the union, the declaratory-defendant herein, could not have gotten original federal-jurisdiction of its lawsuit to enforce its arbitral-award because the employer is not an “employer" for purposes of the National Labor Management Relation Act, 1947, supra, and its lawsuit could not “arise under” federal law, the employer was precluded from invoking the original federal-jurisdiction of its action under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, supra, against the union under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), supra.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the threatened coercive action arises under federal law.

Reynolds v. Stahr · filed 1991-03-21

The threatened coercive action in this case is a claim for benefits under ERISA, § 502(a)(1)(B), which is, of course, a federal claim. Under this analysis jurisdiction is appropriate under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action between non-diverse parties when the threatened action raises no federal question.

Hudson County News Co. v. Metro Associates, Inc. · filed 1992-03-19

If the threatened action by the declaratory judgment defendant does not present a federal question, this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action between non-diverse parties.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over an ERISA declaratory judgment action brought by a plan administrator.

Pabst Brewing Co. v. Corrao · filed 1997-12-01

Based on the above, I find that this court does not have original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over the plaintiffs declaratory judgment action.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the defendant could bring a coercive action arising under federal law.

Household Bank v. JFS Group · filed 2003-04-07

Under the law of this circuit, pursuant to the decision in Gulf States, a federal district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action if, as here, a plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint alleges facts demonstrating the defendant could file a coercive action arising under federal law.

Section 1331 permits federal courts to enforce state educational standards that federal special-education law incorporates into the federal statutory duty.

Geis, Robert and Loretta Geis v. Board of Education of Parsippany-Troy Hills, Morris County · filed 1985-09-30

By this catchall provision, federal law incorporates any state standards that go beyond the minimum standards of the Act, and thereby confers on the federal courts authority to enforce such standards under their “federal question” jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a claim that selling unauthorized cable decoders violates the federal Communications Act.

Porter County Cable Co., Inc. v. Moyer · filed 1983-01-13

As was stated in the pleadings, this Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because defendants’ actions are in violation of a federal statute, specifically 47 U.S.C. § 605.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges a violation of the federal wiretap statute.

Berger v. King World Productions, Inc. · filed 1990-03-21

The amended complaint alleges that this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question). In their answer, defendants merely use boiler-plate language to challenge jurisdiction. Their pleadings never specify why this court lacks jurisdiction nor did counsel seriously challenge jurisdiction in any appearances before this court. Relying on plaintiff’s allegation that defendants violated a federal wiretap statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, the court concludes that jurisdiction is proper in a federal district court.

Section 1331 gives a court jurisdiction over constitutional challenges under a federal statute even when another district court has exclusive jurisdiction over a related in rem forfeiture action.

Jensen v. United States · filed 1990-07-20

This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the constitutional actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 federal question jurisdiction. ... That court’s exclusive jurisdiction over the forfeiture action, however, does not deprive this court of jurisdiction over constitutional issues raised by the fishermen under the Magnuson Act.

Section 1331 and the False Claims Act give jurisdiction over a sufficiently pleaded federal action.

United States Ex Rel. Stinson, Lyons, Gerlin & Bustamante, P.A. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc. · filed 1990-12-14

Additionally, the Court determined that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1988) and 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b) (1988), that collateral estoppel did not preclude the Court’s consideration of the subject matter jurisdiction issue, that the complaint on its face was pleaded sufficiently to invoke the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and that the relator-plaintiff, Stinson, Lyons, Gerlin and Bustamante, P.A. (“Stinson Lyons”) had complied satisfactorily with the procedural requirements of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. ... et seq.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over an action requiring interpretation of federal laws and potentially the Constitution.

Illinois ex rel. Harris v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System · filed 1991-01-03

The case presents a “federal question”, calling as it does for an interpretation of federal laws and possibly the Constitution; it involves a contract with the United States; and the plaintiff seeks “to compel an officer of the United States to perform [what the plaintiff alleges to be] his duty”. Jurisdiction in this court is therefore proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1346 and 1361.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to decide whether a federal agency is acting beyond its statutory authority.

Southern Ohio Coal Co. v. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement · filed 1993-08-19

The federal courts are granted jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, to consider federal questions. ... The question of whether a federal agency is acting outside its statutory authority is a federal question.

Section 1331 covers claims concerning contracts entered under federal statutory authority when the parties’ rights derive from federal law.

California Hospital Ass'n v. Maxwell-Jolly · filed 2011-03-04

Any claim related to such a contract “arises under” federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a substantial, nonfrivolous federal claim arising in an actual controversy, and dismissal is required when those conditions are absent.

Trahan v. Regan · filed 1982-12-21

Further, aside from FRCP 12(b)(6), plaintiffs’ suit, having failed to present a substantial federal question which arises in the context of an actual controversy, must be dismissed pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when the right to relief depends on applying federal law and the federal claim is more than merely colorable and rests on a reasonable foundation.

Birbeck v. Southern New England Production Credit Ass'n · filed 1985-03-29

The general rule is that where it appears from the bill or statement of the plaintiff that the right to relief depends upon the construction or application of the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that such federal claim is not merely colorable, and rests upon a reasonable foundation, the District Court has jurisdiction under this provision.

A state-created claim does not support Section 1331 jurisdiction when its federal element is too insubstantial.

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Sarkisian · filed 1986-06-19

To whatever extent New York has thereby made observance of the Full Faith and Credit Clause an element of plaintiff’s cause of action, this “federal” element is too insubstantial to support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal court to hear a federal claim unless it is immaterial and asserted solely to obtain jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Eubanks v. O.L. McCotter Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Defendants · filed 1986-10-17

They invoked general “federal question” jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This is a classic example of a case in which the federal cause of action and federal jurisdiction are interdependent. Thus, the only question is whether the appellants’ claim “clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” or if “such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” This case does not fall within either of those exceptions.

Section 1331 does not support federal-question jurisdiction over a local-law quiet title claim when resolving the claim does not require deciding a substantial federal question.

Yokeno v. Mafnas · filed 1992-08-28

To summarize, the district court erred in concluding that it had subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute, because resolution of a substantial federal question is not necessary to adjudicate Yokeno’s quiet title claim under CNMI law.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a substantial claim to a federal statutory right even if the claim ultimately fails on the merits.

Miller Ex Rel. Miller v. Whitburn · filed 1993-03-24

Jurisdiction is present. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff is contending that she has been denied a right to which she is entitled under the Medicaid statute. ... Her claim is substantial enough to avoid dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, whether or not it succeeds on the merits.

Section 1331 confers federal question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the controversy presents a substantial First Amendment question, apart from any Lanham Act claim.

Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n · filed 1993-11-23

The evidentiary hearing clearly raised fundamental “First Amendment” questions as a result of the parties’ actions. Such questions, apart from invocation of the Lanham Act, confer jurisdiction upon the court in accord with 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal claim; a claim without merit or foreclosed by prior decisions does not support federal-question jurisdiction.

Erie City Retirees Ass'n v. City of Erie · filed 1993-12-03

Therefore, a federal court may dismiss for lack of jurisdiction if the federal claim underlying an action is without merit or has been foreclosed by previous court decisions. Such is the case with the present Plaintiffs claim of unequal treatment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a federal statute is only tangentially relevant to a state probate dispute and its application or interpretation is not disputed.

Ernzen v. Ernzen · filed 1995-02-28

Section 2032A is implicated only to the extent its legislative history provides guidance relevant to distribution under estate and probate law. The application and interpretation of the statute are not in dispute, and the tangential involvement of the statute is simply insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state declaratory judgment claim involving an ERISA plan when ERISA provides no corresponding private right of action and the claim presents no substantial federal question.

Washington v. Humana Health Plan, Inc. · filed 1995-04-20

Because there is no indication that Congress has chosen to include in ERISA’s civil enforcement provisions a private right of action such as the one Washington has brought here, it appears that there is no “substantial” question of federal law (as defined in Merrell Dow) and hence no federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question for federal-question jurisdiction; a federally required contract notice invoked to answer a defense to a state-law claim does not supply one.

Turpeau v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. · filed 1996-03-29

That the notice may be required under federal law does not present a “substantial question of federal law” to this court and, therefore, does not compel the conclusion that the removal of these remaining Defendants is proper.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law malpractice claim when deciding the claim requires no substantial question of federal law to be resolved.

Diaz v. Sheppard · filed 1996-06-25

No substantial question of federal law must be answered to determine plaintiff's claims, and federal jurisdiction is lacking.

Section 1331 requires a live controversy over an asserted federal issue before that issue can support federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action.

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians · filed 1996-08-23

In order to find that the plaintiffs Nonintercourse Act claim presents a federal question sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction under § 1331, however, we must first ascertain that there is in fact a live controversy over the validity of the franchise agreement.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question to support federal-question jurisdiction.

Jackson v. Strayer College · filed 1996-10-03

Because the plaintiff has failed to establish a substantial federal question in this case, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction based on federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that can be resolved without a substantial question of federal law.

M.P. Means v. Independent Life & Accident Insurance · filed 1997-05-20

Consequently, this court concludes that the Plaintiffs’ state law claims can be brought without the need for resolving a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims requiring interpretation of a securities exchange’s rules merely because the rules were promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act.

Petrie v. Pacific Stock Exchange, Inc. · filed 1997-10-27

First, the court concludes that the interpretation and investigation of the Exchange’s rules does not confer federal question jurisdiction over the Petries’ claims even though those rules were promulgated under the Act’s authority.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question to support jurisdiction when diversity is absent.

Wyke v. Polk County School Board · filed 1997-11-19

Absent diversity of citizenship, a plaintiff must present a “substantial” federal question in order to invoke the district court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a federal claim that is doubtful on the merits unless it is clearly foreclosed or obviously without merit.

Wyke v. Polk County School Board · filed 1997-11-19

We cannot say that Wyke's argument was so "insubstantial," "clearly foreclosed," or "obviously without merit" as to deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a private purchaser’s state-law claim merely because it uses a violation of the Manufactured Housing Act as an element when Congress provided no federal remedy for that purchaser.

Richard v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1998-03-12

Similarly, Congress’s determination for the Manufactured Home Standards Act that only dealers, distributors, the United States Attorney General, and appropriate United States Attorneys have a federal injunctive remedy is tantamount to the congressional conclusion that a claimed violation of this Act by a private purchaser as an element of .a state cause of action is insufficiently “substantial” to confer federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question, but a claim remains substantial when precedent makes it doubtful without clearly foreclosing it, even if the claim ultimately fails.

Wyke v. Polk County School Board · filed 1998-03-26

We agree that DeShaney may have rendered Wyke's constitutional claim doubtful from the beginning, but mere doubt is not enough to deprive the district court of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 grants federal question jurisdiction when a federal claim is substantial, even if precedent makes its merits doubtful and the claim ultimately fails.

Wyke v. Polk County School Board · filed 1998-03-26

We cannot say that Wyke’s argument was so “insubstantial,” “clearly foreclosed,” or “obviously without merit” as to deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal issue embedded in a state-law claim to be sufficiently substantial to create federal-question jurisdiction.

Eastern States Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc. · filed 1998-06-29

The well-pleaded state-law subrogation claim requires resolution of a federal issue, but not one that is sufficiently substantial to create federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question; the involvement of federal funds alone does not establish one.

Sac & Fox Nation of Oklahoma v. Cuomo · filed 1999-10-12

But the fact that federal funds are involved is, by itself, insufficient to establish the existence of a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they may require consideration of a federal statute.

In Re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation · filed 1999-10-15

The mere fact that state law claims may require consideration of the Hatch-Waxman Act does not raise a sufficiently significant federal issue so as to confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state vaccine-injury tort claims merely because the Vaccine Act supplies defenses, presumptions, or procedural rules.

Haggerty Ex Rel. Haggerty v. Wyeth Ayerst Pharmaceuticals · filed 2000-01-04

None of these features of the Vaccine Act compel the conclusion that, under applicable precedents, questions “substantial” enough to confer federal question jurisdiction are necessarily presented by vaccine-related personal injury litigation.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law fiduciary-duty claim merely because an alleged federal statutory violation informs the duty analysis when the federal interest is too insubstantial.

Donovan v. Rothman · filed 2000-07-18

Federal question jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that federal district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions “arising under” the laws of the United States. ... Accordingly, the federal interest in plaintiffs’ claim for relief against the Hospital is too insubstantial to support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because adjudicating it requires interpreting federal law; the federal question must be substantial.

Halfmann v. USAG Ins. Services, Inc. · filed 2000-10-23

After review of 7 C.F.R. part 400 and the requirements applicable to policies reinsured by the FCIC under the FCIA, the Court does not find that the interpretation of federal laws required to adjudicate Halfmann’s claims is so substantial that it could be said to “arise under”federal law.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a substantial federal claim even if the complaint fails to establish an element; jurisdictional dismissal is reserved for claims made solely to obtain jurisdiction or claims that are wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Von R. Trimble, Jr. v. Asarco · filed 2000-11-28

Consistent with Bell v. Hood, a motion to dismiss a federal claim, if predicated on failure to establish an essential element of the cause of action, should generally be analyzed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), unless it can be shown that the challenged claim "clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous."

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim only when resolving a substantial federal question is necessary to the claim.

Loussides v. America Online, Inc. · filed 2001-01-25

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction extends only to cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law, in that federal law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the defendant identifies no substantial federal question supporting jurisdiction.

McCallister v. Purdue Pharma L.P. · filed 2001-09-27

Accordingly, the Court FINDS and CONCLUDES Defendants have not identified a substantial federal question supporting federal jurisdiction which would allow removal to this Court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a state-law claim may require a court to look to federal law.

O'DONNELL v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wyoming · filed 2001-11-08

The mere fact that a state court may look to federal law to aid it in construing a portion of a state cause of action does not turn the state cause of action into a federal question or cause of action.