28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction when the operative complaint alleges a more than insubstantial violation of federal law.

Willis v. US Bank Trust National Association · filed 2025-04-07

As explained in the notice of removal, see Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3, the petition that Willis filed in state court (currently the operative complaint in federal court) [Dkt. No. 1-4 at 10-17] asserts more than an insubstantial violation of federal law (the Fair Housing Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) and thus supports the Court’s jurisdiction over this action under Section 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an airplane-crash tort claim merely because the applicable standard of care may come from federal law; a fact-bound dispute about compliance is not a substantial federal question.

Bevacqua v. Hillsboro Aero Academy, LLC · filed 2025-04-10

Litigation of tort claims from an airplane crash instead raises “fact-bound and situation-specific” questions about whether conduct satisfied the applicable standard of care under the circumstances, Empire HealthChoice, 547 U.S. at 701, which does not qualify as a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless resolving it requires deciding a substantial federal question.

Andy Investments LLC v. Potter · filed 2025-04-21

True enough, if the Potters were correct that Andy Investments’ right to relief in the state unlawful detainer action “requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law in dispute between the parties,” Dkt. No. 14 at 4, the state action would “arise under” federal law for jurisdictional purposes. But that premise—that a court cannot resolve the unlawful detainer claim without first resolving some federal law question—is not correct.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over foreign-law claims when the federal issues they raise are not substantial to the federal system as a whole.

Peary v. DC Comics, Inc. · filed 2025-04-24

All of these asserted issues, however, suffer the same shortcoming: They are not substantial within the meaning of Grable and its progeny.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law or turn on a substantial federal question; references to federal regulations that are not critical to resolving the claim do not suffice.

Moales v. Land Rover Cherry Hill · filed 2025-04-30

Therefore, there is no evidence that the resolution of any claim in this action turns on a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question supported by facts suggesting a claim under federal law.

Leathers v. Fed Ex · filed 2025-07-16

In order for jurisdiction to arise under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a plaintiff must raise a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim merely because federal regulations define the standard of care.

Silva v. West Texas Frac Sand Logistics LLC · filed 2025-07-17

As both Grable and Merrell Dow make clear, incorporating federal regulations to define the standard of care under a state law tort theory does not, standing alone, confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the cited federal statutes are clearly inapplicable and invoked solely to obtain jurisdiction.

VILAYPHUNH v. SAUNDERS · filed 2025-08-19

Since the listed statutes are clearly inapplicable and appear to have been invoked “solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction,” the Court concludes that Vilayphunh’s Complaint does not raise a substantial federal question that would justify exercising jurisdiction under either § 1331 or § 1343.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when its embedded federal issue is not substantial.

Aaron J. West, M.D., P.A. v. Drago · filed 2025-09-18

For the reasons below, the Court finds that to the extent Vigilant’s state-law claims raise a federal question, it is not a substantial one.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that a state statute is facially unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment because the claim requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Southern Highlands Community Association · filed 2025-09-30

The Court also has federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Deutsche sought a declaration that the Nevada statute was facially unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. This required resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question; wholly insubstantial claims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Noh · filed 2025-11-03

These “wholly insubstantial” claims are insufficient to “raise a substantial federal question for jurisdictional purposes.”

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question; a bare assertion that claims arise under federal law or the Constitution is insufficient.

Love · filed 2025-12-29

As threshold matter, the plaintiffs respond to the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by summarily asserting there is jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the claims arise under the Constitution and federal law. See ECF No. 30 at 2. This is insufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(1) motion.

Section 1331(a) requires substantial, not remote, reliance on federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Lance International, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · filed 1967-02-09(a)

To suffice for invocation of federal jurisdiction, the reliance on federal law must be substantial, not remote.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to be substantial; a claim previously deemed unsubstantial by the Supreme Court does not satisfy that requirement.

Port Authority Bondholders Protective Committee, Henry W. Klein, Alvin S. Lane, Adele W. Ginsberg and Morris L. Lewy v. · filed 1967-11-17

Plaintiffs’ difficulty thus does not lie in failure to allege a federal question but in inability to meet the further test that the claim must not be plainly unsubstantial, Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin, 289 U.S. 103, 105-106, 53 S.Ct. 549, 550, 77 L.Ed. 1062 (1933). ... We thus see no escape from the conclusion that the Supreme Court has labeled as unsubstantial the very question which constitutes plaintiffs’ most likely basis for asserting federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a constitutional claim is substantial rather than frivolous.

Sotomura v. County of Hawaii · filed 1975-09-19

As noted previously, this court finds plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim to be far from being frivolous.

A federal issue in a state-law claim does not, by itself, establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Kentucky Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi Inc. · filed 2026-03-03

The mere presence of a federal issue in a state law cause of action does not automatically confer federal removal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 can provide jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily raises a disputed and substantial federal issue when exercising jurisdiction preserves the approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Kentucky Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi Inc. · filed 2026-03-04

After Grable, the substantial-federal-question doctrine has three parts: (1) the state-law claim must necessarily raise a disputed federal issue; (2) the federal interest in the issue must be substantial; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must not disturb any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the asserted federal issue arises only as a defense and the substantial federal question doctrine does not apply.

Ohio Gambling Recovery, LLC v. Kalshi Inc. · filed 2026-03-30

Tallying the above, the substantial federal question doctrine does not apply in this case and the Court lacks federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint does not necessarily depend on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

Wilcox · filed 2026-03-30

There is no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the Amended Complaint does not “necessarily [depend] on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a challenge to a municipal business regulation when the challenge presents a substantial federal constitutional question.

Aladdin's Castle, Inc. v. City of Mesquite · filed 1980-11-17

Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The city does not dispute the existence of diversity. It does argue, however, that a federal question has not been presented. We note in this regard that Murphy v. California, 225 U.S. 623, 32 S.Ct. 697, 56 L.Ed. 1229 (1912) and similar cases, e. g., Phillips v. City of Atlanta, 57 F.Supp. 588 (N.D.Ga.), aff’d, 145 F.2d 470 (5th Cir. 1944), are not authority for the proposition that a substantial federal question is never presented by any municipal regulation of a business conducting a public amusement. Murphy does not say that a federal question is not presented if a city decides to regulate by void laws, irrational laws or laws violative of substantive constitutional rights such as due process or taking.

A sufficiently substantial Fourteenth Amendment claim establishes jurisdiction under § 1331 before the court decides whether the claim provides a cause of action.

Pitrone v. Police Officer Louis J. Mercadante, Police Officer Thomas McMann Police Captain Rowen Kelley, Warm · filed 1978-02-21

We held that the Fourteenth Amendment issue was a sufficiently substantial federal question to vest the court with jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Since an independent basis for federal jurisdiction existed, Aldinger is no barrier to hearing the pendent state claims.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law.

Canaday v. Kelley · filed 1994-10-14

The constitutional and federal statutory violations claimed by plaintiff do not present substantial federal questions. Therefore, we find no error in the district court's refusal to exercise pendent jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claim.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims under a National Flood Insurance Program policy when the right to relief necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Battle v. Seibels Bruce Insurance Company · filed 2002-04-29

We need not tackle the difficult statutory construction question raised by SCIC's argument because the district court clearly possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the Remaining Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... First, the law is well settled that federal common law alone governs the interpretation of insurance policies issued pursuant to the NFIP. ... This is because Battle's so-called "CONVERSION" claim is essentially a breach of contract claim with respect to Battle's SFIP, which claim, as explained previously, is governed solely by federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims under a Standard Flood Insurance Policy when relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

Battle v. Bruce · filed 2002-06-04

We hold the district court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over these claims under the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and, therefore, we vacate the district court's remand of those claims to state court.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question; a federal court may dismiss a fee-paid complaint on its own initiative when the purported federal claim is plainly insubstantial.

Stinson · filed 2026-02-10

When subject matter jurisdiction is based on a federal question, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, rather than on diversity of citizenship, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the Supreme Court has held that “‘it is essential to jurisdiction that a substantial federal question should be presented.’” Hagans, 415 U.S. at 537 (quoting Ex parte Poresky, 290 U.S. 30, 31(1933)). ... Contrary to Plaintiff’s objections, there is considerable authority for federal courts to screen a fee-paid complaint such as this sua sponte to determine whether it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or clearly baseless factual contentions, depriving the court of the subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a substantial federal claim even if the claim later fails on the merits.

Junior Chamber of Commerce of Rochester, Inc., Rochester, New York v. The United States Jaycees, Tulsa, Oklahoma · filed 1974-04-16

Since, however, it is more a matter of form and procedure to dismiss the cause out of hand, we choose to accept jurisdiction and then to consider whether plaintiffs present a meritorious claim under the Constitution and laws of the United States. ... However, in view of the fact that the plaintiffs offered evidence to show that the various statutes were applied in an unconstitutional way, it appears to us that the cause is not one in which there is a palpable deficiency in the area of jurisdiction.

Section 1331(a) requires dismissal when controlling Supreme Court decisions make an asserted federal question plainly insubstantial.

Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians v. United States Food & Drug Administration · filed 1978-08-28(a)

Although we uphold the judgments of dismissal in all four cases, we find it necessary to address only the issue concerning the existence of a substantial federal question. ... Because we discern nothing indicating that their position, once labeled insubstantial, should now be considered otherwise, we affirm the judgments of the district court.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a contract dispute that raises no substantial federal question.

Mobil Oil Corp. v. City of Long Beach · filed 1984-01-17

Inasmuch as the controversy involved in this litigation presents no substantial federal question arising either under the Constitution or a statute, section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction for this court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises no substantial federal question.

Pillis v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance · filed 1993-11-17

As this action does not “arise under” federal law and Plaintiffs Complaint does not raise any valid issues of federal law, no substantial federal question is raised so as to give this Court jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims under a standard flood insurance policy when relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

Battle v. Seibels Bruce Insurance · filed 2002-04-29

We hold the district court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over these claims under the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and, therefore, we vacate the district court’s remand of those claims to state court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims for fraudulent Medicare Advantage enrollment when relief does not require resolving a substantial federal issue.

Frazier v. Humana Wisconsin Health Organization Insurance Corp · filed 2021-01-07

Second, Plaintiff’s right to relief does not necessarily depend upon resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a contract refers to federal law.

AAA Autoglass, Inc. v. Scharbach · filed 2022-01-05

Following that guidance, the case before the Court clearly does not present a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction where the asserted Section 1983 claim alleges no plausible state action and the complaint establishes no other federal basis for jurisdiction.

Townsend v. ALPHA EMC, Inc. · filed 2022-04-27

Hence, Plaintiff’s attempt to rely upon Section 1983 as a basis for federal jurisdiction fails.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state products liability claims merely because they allege violations of federal regulations; the federal issue must be substantial.

Yates v. 3M Company · filed 2022-09-27

There is no federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 in these cases.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a patent issue it may raise is not substantial.

Smart Communications Holding, Inc. v. VendEngine, Inc. · filed 2023-01-30

For all of these reasons, the substantial-federal-question exception does not apply. Accordingly, the well-pleaded complaint rule governs here, and its application makes clear that there is no federal-question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over constitutional claims that are substantial enough to present a federal controversy, even if the claims may fail on the merits.

Davis v. United States Department of Justice · filed 2023-09-28

Constitutional claims such as those alleged by Plaintiffs are matters of federal concern that confer jurisdiction on this Court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claims are immaterial or wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Holmes v. Hollis · filed 2023-10-23

In sum, none of Plaintiff’s allegations give rise to a federal question that would provide this Court with jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when its embedded federal issue is fact-bound and insufficiently substantial.

Gregory Properties, Inc. v. Marchbanks · filed 2024-01-05

Accordingly, Gregory Properties’ claim does not include a substantial federal issue worth disturbing the balance of federal and state power in eminent domain proceedings.

Section 1331(a) supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over a federal challenge to interception of a tax overpayment for child support when the suit is not a tax-refund action and tax-suit jurisdictional restrictions do not apply.

Sorenson v. Secretary of the Treasury of the United States · filed 1982-12-28(a)

The defendants’ motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED. The Court finds that this is not a tax refund suit, that the Anti-Injunction Act and the similar limitations in the Declaratory Judgment Act are inapplicable to the present action, that sovereign immunity is waived under 5 U.S.C. § -702, and that subject matter jurisdiction is found in 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over constitutional claims seeking return of records allegedly retained by the IRS in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar such a claim when it concerns search and seizure rather than tax liability.

Linn v. Chivatero · filed 1983-09-19

In summary, we hold that the district court has jurisdiction over Linn's constitutional claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar consideration of Linn's request for the return of records allegedly retained in violation of the fourth amendment because that request pertains to his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, not his tax liability.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a challenge to federal agency action that raises federal questions even when the complaint does not cite the section.

Mojica-Morales v. Acting Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security · filed 2022-01-07

Therefore, while Mojica Morales’s new complaint did fail to cite 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the facts alleged in his new complaint sat- isfy the jurisdictional requirements of § 1331 because those facts challenge federal agency action and raise federal questions.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a federal cause of action, even if it does not cite the jurisdictional statute.

Arce v. Garcia · filed 2006-01-04

The omission of a jurisdictional basis for the first count is not fatal, however, for we assume jurisdiction under § 1331 when it appears that a complaint’s allegations state a cause of action under federal law.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when the district court considers a federal claim supported by the alleged facts, even if the complaint does not explicitly plead that claim.

U.S. Quest Ltd. v. Kimmons · filed 2000-09-14

However, because the district court in fact considered Jordan’s securities fraud claim, which arose under federal law, jurisdiction was proper.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution even when the complaint does not expressly invoke the statute.

Jaffree v. Board of School Com'rs of Mobile County · filed 1983-01-14

While the complaint does not allege that subject-matter jurisdiction is vested in the court under the general, federal-question jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, certainly subject-matter jurisdiction is vested under that provision since a federal district court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, exclusive of the amount-in-eontroversy.

A complaint alleging Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations arises under Section 1331 even without citing the statute, although another federal statute may still bar the requested relief.

Linn v. Chivatero · filed 1983-09-19

Although the plaintiffs did not specifically mention section 1331 in their pleadings, the district court properly assumed that they had stated a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as well as under the anomalous jurisdiction doctrine, because it is clear from the face of their complaint, which seeks recovery under the fourth and fifth amendments to the United States Constitution, that they have alleged federal question jurisdiction. ... Since we conclude that, were it not for the existence of the Anti-Injunction Act, the federal courts would normally have jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, we need not determine whether the plaintiffs have met the strict requirements for the exercise of anomalous jurisdiction as well.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists when constitutional violations sufficient to present a federal question are apparent from the face of the complaint.

Caldwell v. Harold G. Miller, Warden · filed 1986-06-16

It is clear from the face of Caldwell’s complaint that he has alleged a number of constitutional violations, arising out of the lockdown at Marion, sufficient to give the district court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a pleaded federal securities claim can exist despite the complaint's failure to include Rule 8(a)'s required statement of the jurisdictional grounds.

Kline v. Henrie · filed 1988-02-22

This finding is essentially a conclusion that the court has federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, over the claims contained in Count I of the complaint. ... No such statement can be found in the complaint.

A state-law quiet-title claim does not arise under Section 1331 when federal navigability law is merely anticipated as a defense or is incidental after federal title has passed.

Hodges Transportation, Inc. v. State · filed 1983-05-11

For a cause of action to state a claim under section 1331, a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an essential element of the plaintiff’s complaint. ... The plaintiff’s anticipation of this defense, however, cannot establish federal question jurisdiction. ... The thorough analysis in these cases leads ineluctably to the conclusion that after federal title has passed, the issue of navigability is only incidental in title disputes between state and private ownership and presents no federal question of sufficient significance to invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a quiet title action when interpreting federal law is central to resolving the property dispute.

SAMUEL C. JOHNSON 1988 v. Bayfield County, Wis. · filed 2008-04-02

Here, the County’s property interest in the railway lines is dependent upon the United States retaining a rever-sionary interest in the land pursuant to the congressional acts deeding the land away, and then rests upon Congress’s disposal of this reversionary interest under 43 U.S.C. § 912 and 16 U.S.C. § 1248(c). The centrality of these federal laws’ interpretation to the proper adjudication of this suit gives rise to federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a quiet-title action when federal law neither creates the claim nor supplies a substantial question necessary to resolve it.

Vigil v. Hughes · filed 2013-02-05

There is no general federal cause of action for quieting title to land. And Vigil’s “right to relief” does not “depend[] on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over allegations arising from a state housing matter.

Heron v. Gunjan Keida CEO of US Bank Trust, N.A. · filed 2025-09-03

Furthermore, plaintiffs’ allegations against defendants arise out of a state housing matter, over which district courts do not have federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over bankruptcy dischargeability questions because they arise under federal bankruptcy law.

Rentals v. Johnson (In Re Johnson) · filed 1983-01-19

The question of dischargeability is certainly a “federal question.”... The district courts, therefore, obviously have original statutory jurisdiction as a civil action “arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

If § 1471 is invalid, § 1331 supplies district-court jurisdiction over bankruptcy-related proceedings that independently present a federal question, but not purely state-law proceedings lacking diversity.

Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board (In Re Braniff Airways, Inc.) · filed 1983-01-20

The Court must now look to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1332 for those cases which would have originated in the federal district court because of either a federal question involved or the diversity of citizenship of the parties. Those cases, now properly in the district court’s jurisdiction, may be combined with the bankruptcy cases in which they arise or to which they are related for the purpose of referring both the bankruptcy “matters and proceedings” (in this court’s jurisdiction under the old § 1334) and the “arising in or related to” matters (in this court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1332) to the bankruptcy judge.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims seeking a determination that a debt is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Washington Mutual Bank v. Carlson (In Re Carlson) · filed 2012-03-30

Additionally, insofar as Gary argues that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we conclude that the district court correctly found that it had federal question jurisdiction over the non-dischargeability claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over the Minnesota state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1367, respectively.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over challenges to INS regulations implementing IRCA because the review limits in 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(f) apply only to individual legalization determinations.

Catholic Social Services, Inc. v. Thornburgh · filed 1992-02-13

CSS and LULAC contend that the district courts had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... As discussed above, the review provisions in section 1255a(f) refer only to determinations of individual applications. We therefore hold that section 1255a(f) does not apply to this case.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a claim that federal officials failed to enforce a federal statute when another court has not been given exclusive jurisdiction over the action.

International Labor Rights Education & Research Fund v. Bush · filed 1990-09-10

Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) cannot be held to give the CIT exclusive jurisdiction over this action. This Court has federal question jurisdiction, because the basis of the case is plaintiffs’ contention that federal officials have failed to enforce a federal statute.

Section 1331’s general jurisdictional grant does not permit a district court to decide matters that Congress has placed within the exclusive jurisdiction of a court of appeals.

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission · filed 1984-06-07

It is well established that where a statute specifically provides for exclusive jurisdiction in one court, as 28 U.S.C. § 2342 does, the specific grant of jurisdiction takes precedence over a general grant of jurisdiction. ... In addition to section 401(b), Southwestern Bell brought its action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 2201 and 2202 (1983). ... Our disposition of its argument under section 401(b) applies with equal force to each of the remaining statutes.

Section 1331 provides district-court jurisdiction to review federal agency action when the governing statute does not explicitly commit that review to the courts of appeals.

General Electric Uranium Management Corp. v. United States Department of Energy · filed 1984-04-05

In the face of such clearly limited language as that in § 119, this court will not presume that Congress intended to commit all judicial review to the courts of appeals. ... In summary, because plaintiff challenges agency action pursuant to § 302 and not § 111(b)(4) in this suit, and because judicial review is not explicitly restricted by § 119(a)(1)(A), jurisdiction lies in the district court.

A challenge to an agency regulation that is not an appeal from a ruling under the statute’s special review provision falls within district-court jurisdiction under § 1331.

Community Nutrition Institute v. John R. Block, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture · filed 1983-01-21

Because this action is not an appeal from a ruling under 7 U.S.C. § 608c(15)(A), the district court’s jurisdiction will exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, rather than 7 U.S.C. § 608c(15)(B).

Section 1331 provides subject-matter jurisdiction over a pre-enforcement CERCLA challenge when plaintiffs have standing and the challenged EPA response action is final and ripe for review.

JV Peters & Co., Inc. v. Ruckelshaus · filed 1984-02-17

Defendants contend that the general federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is insufficient to provide a basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this action for several reasons. ... Inasmuch as plaintiffs maintain the requisite standing to bring this action, and the issues raised are ripe for judicial review, a sufficient basis for subject matter jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 permits district courts to hear bona fide constitutional challenges to agency procedures when the governing agency-review statute does not expressly preclude district-court jurisdiction over such procedural claims.

Southern Ohio Coal Company v. Donovan · filed 1985-10-02

The analysis thus far concerns whether the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, federal question jurisdiction. ... The claims made in the instant cases are bona fide claims against the procedure adopted by the Secretary of Labor under the Mine Act. As such, we find that the district courts indeed did have jurisdiction to hear the claims, at least against challenges premised upon the exclusive court of appeals jurisdiction to review claims on the merits.

Section 1331 supports pre-enforcement review of a federal agency’s allegedly unconstitutional and unauthorized action when the governing statute neither affirmatively confers nor strips district-court jurisdiction and no clear and convincing evidence shows Congress intended to preclude review.

Solar Turbines, Inc. v. Seif · filed 1988-02-12

On the facts in the case at bar there is no affirmative mandate in the Act conferring jurisdiction on the court, nor is there a mandate stripping jurisdiction from the court. ... In addition, courts should not restrict access to judicial review of administrative action except “upon a showing of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ of a contrary legislative intent____” ... As discussed above, the jurisdiction provisions of the Clean Air Act do not evidence such a showing. ... The court finds it has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 5 U.S.C. § 702, ... Therefore, plaintiff’s assertion that the commerce clause is a basis for jurisdiction need not be addressed.

When Congress does not specify a forum for initial judicial review of federal agency action, Section 1331 permits nonstatutory review in federal district court, not original review in the court of appeals.

Five Flags Pipe Line Company v. Department of Transportation, Five Flags Pipe Line Company v. Department of Transportati · filed 1988-08-26

If Congress makes no specific choice of this type in the statute pursuant to which the agency action is taken, or in another statute applicable to it, ... then an aggrieved person may get “nonstatutory review” — a confusing misnomer — in federal district court pursuant to the general “federal question” jurisdiction of that court. ... Congress ... failed to specify in the COBRA that direct review of the agency’s user fee schedules lies in the court of appeals. We therefore conclude that we lack jurisdiction to hear these petitions for review. ... Original jurisdiction in the district court over these petitions may appropriately be invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982).

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over statutory and due-process challenges to the validity of a federal forfeiture even when the claimant did not use the statutory procedure for obtaining judicial forfeiture.

Marshall Leasing, Inc., a Washington Corporation v. United States of America, United States Department of Justice, Drug · filed 1990-03-01

The district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the first three claims, which arise under the forfeiture statutes and the due process clause of the United States Constitution, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Appellant’s failure to resort to the statutory scheme for obtaining a judicial forfeiture cannot be taken to deprive this court of jurisdiction to hear appellant’s claims that appellant did not receive constitutionally adequate notice of the availability of judicial forfeiture and that the statutory scheme and the Constitution required the government itself to initiate judicial forfeiture.

When Congress has not prescribed a mode of judicial review for a type of federal administrative decision, Section 1331 presumptively permits an injured person to seek district-court review under federal law.

Cronin v. United States Department of Agriculture · filed 1990-11-28

When persons harmed by administrative action bring a suit for injunction in a federal district court, it is not because they want, or are entitled to, a trial. It is because when Congress has not prescribed the mode of judicial review of a particular type of administrative decision, here a decision by the Forest Service, the presumption is not that judicial review is unavailable but that it is available by proceeding in federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives those courts power to entertain suits arising under federal laws.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to review agency action seeking nonmonetary enforcement of federal statutory, regulatory, and government-contract rights when the suit’s primary objective is not money damages reserved to the Claims Court.

Hamilton Stores, Inc. v. Hodel · filed 1991-02-11

In sum, here the primary purpose and essential objective of HSI’s suit was to protect its preferential right to offer to afford new or additional accommodations, not to require the payment of compensatory damages. The claim of violation of plaintiff HSI’s rights under the statute and regulations, and the parallel contract provisions, comes within federal question jurisdiction of the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for review of the challenged agency action. ... Moreover, an action asserting a claim founded on such a contract with a federal agency is one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States within the jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on the federal district courts.

Section 1331 does not independently provide jurisdiction to review agency action when the governing statute precludes review.

Banks v. Page · filed 1991-06-24

It is well settled that neither the Declaratory Judgment Act nor the Federal Question statute independently confers jurisdiction.

A federal declaratory action does not arise under Section 1331 when the asserted federal statute supplies only a defense to an existing state administrative proceeding rather than an affirmative federal right independent of that proceeding.

John E. Reid & Associates, Inc. v. Illinois Human Rights Commission · filed 1990-05-18

In this case, by contrast, Reid’s asserted claim under the EPPA arose ... only ... as a defense to the proceeding before the Illinois Human Rights Commission, or more specifically, as a defense to a discovery order entered in that proceeding. ... Reid’s complaint does not arise under federal law and this court thus does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of federal rights.

Henrichs v. Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board · filed 2018-01-26

A claim that a defendant violated a plaintiff’s federal rights gives rise to federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not support implying a cause of action directly under the Fourteenth Amendment when § 1983 adequately vindicates the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Horne v. Farrell · filed 1983-01-28

The plaintiff would have this court allow him both a cause of action for damages under § 1983 and an implied cause of action under the fourteenth amendment via 28 U.S.C. § 1331.... In the present case, Horne’s rights can be adequately vindicated under § 1983. There is no need to imply a constitutional cause of action directly under the fourteenth amendment. The claims based directly on the fourteenth amendment will be dismissed.

A military-discharge action relying on Section 1331 must be commenced within the applicable six-year limitations period.

June v. Secretary of the Navy · filed 1982-12-23

Similarly, to the extent that the plaintiff may base jurisdiction upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ... the outer limit for commencing the action is a period of six years. ... Although it is clear that a six-year period controls this case, the parties vigorously disagree concerning the manner in which the time should be calculated.

Because Section 1331 contains no limitations period, a constitutional claim brought under it borrows the most closely analogous state statute of limitations.

Albert A. Blanck, Futuronics Corporation v. (Maj. Gen.) Chester M. McKeen (Jr.), (u.s.a. Ret'd), (Col.) Philip Cole, (u. · filed 1983-05-23

Appellants allege that their cause of action arises under the First and Fifth Amendments and that jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). Since neither the amendments nor the federal statute contain a statute of limitations, the most closely analogous state statute of limitations applies.

Bivens actions brought under Section 1331 have no express federal limitations period and borrow the relevant state's personal-injury limitations period because they are analogous to Section 1983 actions.

Hawks v. Rardin · filed 1990-02-16

Plaintiff brings this civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal question jurisdictional statute. No statute of limitations is expressly provided for actions under that statute. ... Actions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, so-called Bivens ... actions, are considered generally analogous to actions brought under § 1983. ... Accordingly, this court must apply the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Kansas Statutes Annotated (K.S.A.) 60-513(a)(4) for “an injury to the rights of another.”

Section 1331's grant of federal-question jurisdiction does not displace the limitations period in the federal statute governing the claim.

Ekhlassi v. National Lloyds Insurance Co. · filed 2019-06-04

In other words, merely because § 1331 's jurisdictional grant applies does not mean § 4072 's statute of limitations does not.

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

Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. City of Cleveland · filed 2010-08-05

Because this federal law issue would only come into play as an anticipated defense to the City’s state law claims, it, alone, cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when the federal issue is only an anticipated defense to a state action, and defensive declaratory relief does not transform that defense into a federal cause of action.

Charles B. Armstrong, Jr. v. Armstrong · filed 1983-01-18

A case does not arise under federal law, however, when the federal question is merely an anticipated defense to a state lawsuit. ... Nor is a federal defense transformed into a federal cause of action by assertion of a claim for defensive declaratory relief.

Section 1331 does not confer original or removal jurisdiction over a state-law declaratory claim merely because the defendant may raise federal preemption as a defense.

People of Illinois ex rel. Barra v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. · filed 1983-04-04

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

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a declaratory claim when the federal patent issue is merely an affirmative defense and no infringement claim is threatened.

CHATTANOOGA CORPORATION v. Klingler · filed 1985-07-26

This Court determines that the challenge to the assigned patents is simply an affirmative defense and that there has been no indication that the defendants intend to charge the plaintiff with infringement. Therefore, this Court concludes that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1338 do not grant this Court subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim, and further, that plaintiffs claim is inappropriate for relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction for a declaratory or intervention claim that merely asserts a federal defense to a threatened state-law action.

Amoco Oil Co. v. Dingwell · filed 1988-07-27

Travelers is, in effect, asserting a federal defense to an impending state court action. In such cases “it is the character of the threatened action, and not of the defense, which will determine whether there is fed...eral-question jurisdiction in the District Court.” ... The threatened reach and apply action in this case arises under a Maine statute and does not involve a claim under federal law; accordingly, federal question jurisdiction should not attach.

Section 1331 does not support a regulated party’s declaratory action when the federal preemption issue would arise only as a defense to a state agency’s enforcement of state law.

Federal Express Corp. v. Tennessee Public Service Commission · filed 1988-08-17

To determine whether the case arises under federal law, the well-pleaded complaint rule requires the court to examine the plaintiff’s complaint, not to anticipate federal defenses. ... if but for the availability of a declaratory judgment the declaratory plaintiff’s claim would have arisen only as a defense to a cause of action brought by the declaratory defendant under state law, no subject-matter jurisdiction exists. ... If the procedural posture of the parties was reversed and the TPSC sought a declaration of its rights under state law, Federal Express’ arguments would arise only as a defense to the state law issue. This is not enough to create subject-matter jurisdiction.

A declaratory plaintiff cannot invoke Section 1331 when its asserted federal right is merely an anticipatory defense to a threatened state-law claim, and an insubstantial federal issue lacking a federal cause of action does not create jurisdiction.

Nashoba Communications Limited Partnership No. 7, D/B/A Nashoba Cable Services v. Town of Danvers, Etc. · filed 1990-01-10

Subject matter jurisdiction in this case depends on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives the district courts original jurisdiction over actions “aris[ing] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Whether a claim arises under federal law must be determined by application of the well-pleaded complaint rule. ... If the defendant’s threatened suit arises solely or most importantly under state law, and the plaintiff’s complaint merely anticipates a defense, there is no jurisdiction. ... Following this lead confirms our belief that an allegation about the Cable Act would not be a sufficiently substantial element of an enforcement action by Danvers to sustain federal jurisdiction. Nashoba concedes, as it must, that there is no explicit right to sue to block rate action by a franchising authority set out in the Act. And, as we explain below, there is none implied. This makes the federal issue insubstantial.

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

Esser v. Roach · filed 1993-08-03

Plaintiffs anticipation of a PKPA defense to a suit on his foreign judgment and artful pleading of his declaratory relief action cannot broaden the scope of section 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action that recasts a federal defense to a state law claim as the claim for relief.

Ceres Terminals, Inc. v. Industrial Commission of Illinois · filed 1995-04-28

And a quest for an independent adjudication in federal court founders on the limited scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A ease arises under federal law, -within the meaning of § 1331, only when the claim for relief depends in some way on federal law, “unaided by anything alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose.” ... All the employers want out of these actions are declarations that Wells and Smith cannot recover benefits under state law. Under Skelly Oil and Franchise Tax Board, that federal defense to a state claim does not arise under federal law. The district court therefore lacked jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action depends on whether the declaratory judgment defendant could affirmatively bring a claim arising under federal law; a federal defense to state-law claims is insufficient.

Virginia International Terminals v. Virginia Electric & Power Co. · filed 2014-05-22

Plaintiffs argument for this Court’s assertion of jurisdiction fails for two reasons. First, Defendant is correct in its statement that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint fails the well-pleaded complaint rule. In conducting a jurisdictional analysis, a federal court must ask “whether the complaint alleges a claim arising under federal law that the declaratory judgment defendant could affirmatively bring against' the declaratory judgment plaintiff.” Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Drain, 237 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir.2001) (emphasis added) (citing TTEA v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, 181 F.3d 676, 681 (5th Cir.1999)).

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when a declaratory judgment action raises a federal issue only as a defense to a threatened coercive action.

Cummings v. Cenergy International Services, LLC · filed 2017-06-15

Second, if the declaratory relief action raises a federal issue only as a defense to a threatened coercive action, this will not supply federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action based on a federal defense to an underlying state law claim.

Blakney v. Prasad · filed 2019-07-19

Ninth Circuit law is clear that there is simply no 97 See id. at 1252–53 (holding no jurisdiction under § 1132(a)(3), but that jurisdiction existed under the DJA because the declaratory judgment defendant could have asserted a federal claim under ERISA as a plaintiff); Callaway Golf Co. v. Screen Actors Guild, Inc., No. 07CV0373-LAB (WMc), 2009 WL 10672729, at *4–5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2009) (“Because the Court would have jurisdiction over a suit brought by Defendants under ERISA § 502 and 515 to require contributions under the applicable agreements, the Court likewise has jurisdiction by way of the Declaratory Judgment Act and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to declare Plaintiffs’ obligations under those same agreements.”); STMicroelectronics, Inc. Pension Restoration Plan v. Santoni, No. CV-04-1025- PHX-ROS, 2007 WL 9757795, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 9, 2007) (jurisdiction where plan sought declaratory judgment that beneficiary was not entitled to any further plan benefits). 98 Dkt. 22 at 10 (“The obvious flaw with defendants’ jurisdictional argument is that jurisdiction is not asserted on the basis of the DJA.”). 99 See supra n.48. federal question jurisdiction where declaratory judgment is sought on a defense raised from an underlying state court case that arises under state law.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action seeking only to establish that a federal defense does not protect the defendant.

Hasmukh Patel, M.D. v. Hamilton Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2020-07-30

And a plaintiff cannot create federal-question jurisdiction by seeking a declaration that a federal defense does not protect the defendant.

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

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

Without the declaratory judgment mechanism, the federal PREP Act issue could arise only as a defense to plaintiff’s claims under Kansas state law. The court thus lacks jurisdiction over the Counterclaim. ... The court concludes that defendants’ Counterclaim does not fall within § 1331—the court’s statutory grant of “arising under” subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory counterclaim when its federal issue would arise only as a defense to the opposing party’s state-law claims.

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

Without the declaratory judgment mechanism, the federal PREP Act issue could arise only as a defense to plaintiff’s claims under Kansas state law. The court thus lacks jurisdiction over the Counterclaim. ... The court concludes that defendants’ Counterclaim does not fall within § 1331—the court’s statutory grant of “arising under” subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; a claim for declaratory relief alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Hueter v. Pederson · filed 2021-09-16

However, a claim for declaratory relief is not sufficient, on its own, to establish federal jurisdiction.

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

Huntsville Senior Services, LLC v. Alabama Department of Public Health · filed 2022-12-13

That allegation cannot support this Court’s exercise of § 1331 jurisdiction. Regency’s FHA allegations present the precise scenario in which a declaratory-judgment claimant asserts, as a basis for jurisdiction, a federal defense in anticipation of the declaratory-judgment defendant’s action under state law.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when federal law supplies only a defense to a threatened state-law claim.

William R. McCorkle and Jeane D. McCorkle v. The First Pennsylvania Banking and Trust Company · filed 1972-04-20(a)

The federal Ship Mortgage Act and 46 U.S.C. § 1012 may be imported into the case, but only as the appellees’ federal defense to a purely state cause of action and not as a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies original jurisdiction over a § 1983 action even if the district court does not expressly state its jurisdictional basis.

Stephenson v. State of Washington Kitsap County Warren Sharpe Danny Clem Leonard W. Costello Leonard W. Kruse G · filed 1995-09-08

In the "Statement of Issues" in his opening brief, Stephenson contends that the district court erred by not explicitly stating the basis for its jurisdiction over his section 1983 action. This contention lacks merit. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States") In the same section, Stephenson contends that the district court erred by entering a summary order awarding defendants costs. We cannot conclude that the award of costs for defendants was an abuse of discretion.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over § 1983 actions because they arise under federal law.

Gleichauf v. Ginsberg · filed 1994-08-01

District courts of the United States "have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Section 1983 of Title 42, U.S.C., is a law of the United States; therefore, it is a civil action of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction unless “otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress[.]"

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim alleging that state officials violated federal statutory rights under the Social Security Act.

Thomas v. Johnston · filed 1983-01-21

Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(13)(A) in adopting its reimbursement rate scheme clearly falls within the ambit of ... it follows that Plaintiffs’ claim may properly be brought under § 1983, and that this court has jurisdiction over the claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 independently provides federal-question jurisdiction over § 1983 claims arising under federal statutes even when § 1343 does not apply, and it no longer requires an amount in controversy.

Tyler v. Mmes. Pasqua & Toloso · filed 1984-12-10

Now that § 1331 no longer contains a jurisdictional amount, Tyler’s action fits perfectly within this description, and may be brought under § 1331 jurisdiction.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction for a Section 1983 claim alleging violations of the Social Security Act.

Arden House, Inc. v. Heintz · filed 1985-06-13(a)

Jurisdiction of a § 1983 claim for violations of the Social Security Act is properly founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over a purported Section 1983 claim when the alleged conduct does not involve action under color of state law.

Eidson v. Arenas · filed 1993-11-10

Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,1343, as well as on pendant jurisdiction. ... As the Defendants have responded and this Court affirms, Defendants are not liable under section 1983 because they are private actors who have not acted under “color of state law.” Plaintiff has failed to establish this indispensable element of a section 1983 action. In the absence of diversity, this Court entirely lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Complaint.

Section 1331 provides original federal jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim invoking the Fourteenth Amendment even when § 1343 also supplies jurisdiction.

Burnett v. Birmingham Board of Education · filed 1994-08-15

Original federal court access may be available under § 1343(a)(3) and/or (4), when § 1983 is relied upon by the plaintiff, but access to a federal court is just as available under § 1331, as proven by defendants’ reliance upon both.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a cognizable § 1983 claim to enforce Social Security Act rights when the Act does not foreclose that remedy.

Laird v. Ramirez · filed 1995-04-24

Thus, the court concludes that the remedial scheme of Titles II and XVI of the SSA do not foreclose a § 1983 cause of action of the kind presented here in Laird’s first cause of action. As a consequence of this conclusion, it follows that Laird has stated a cognizable federal question claim giving this court subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim even when the complaint fails to establish state action; that failure means the complaint fails to state a claim.

Elliott v. Chrysler Financial · filed 2005-09-02

Although § 1331 would provide subject matter jurisdiction, Mr. Elliott’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it fails to establish state action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim against a defendant when the complaint alleges no state action by that defendant.

Guttman v. Silverberg · filed 2005-12-19

To the extent Guttman’s claims against Silverberg are based on § 1983, we conclude that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Guttman did not allege state action on the part of Silverberg in his complaint, ... appellate briefs on his issue.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

SALEEM v. BONDS · filed 2020-01-10

It is well established that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over § 1983 claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 even when the claim fails on the merits.

Churchill v. Amin Family Medical Center · filed 2020-03-02

Plaintiff, however, also alleges violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which does support this Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Nevertheless, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief under that statute.

Section 1331 gives federal courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Green v. State of Washington · filed 2021-02-16

Claims brought pursuant to § 1983 invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims pursuant to the FTCA per 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint pleads Section 1983 claims alleging violations of identified federal constitutional rights.

Harrington v. City of Shiner, Texas · filed 2021-09-30

In this case, Harrington does indeed plead numerous Section 1983 claims against each of the Defendants, clearly alleging the specific constitutional rights he claims were violated. ... Thus, it is clear that these claims invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Harlan v. Texas Workforce Commission · filed 2022-02-16

Constitutional claims under § 1983 properly invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Humphrey v. Straube · filed 2022-04-12

“In civil cases, subject matter jurisdiction is generally conferred upon federal district courts either through diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”48 ... 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a federal statute that would provide this Court with federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over § 1983 claims alleging violations of federal constitutional rights.

Wood v. State of Florida · filed 2022-05-10

In short, Ms. Wood’s section 1983 claims provide this Court federal question jurisdiction, and remand is unwarranted.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction over a well-pleaded § 1983 claim alleging a violation of constitutional rights.

Hero v. Lake County Election Board · filed 2022-08-02

Hero’s well‐pleaded complaint raises a “federal question” by alleging a deprivation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a cause of action, which suffices to grant fed‐ eral‐question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations.

Massey v. City of Ruidoso Downs · filed 2022-11-22

Second, a claim arising under § 1983, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, plainly arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and thus constitutes a federal question for jurisdiction purposes. See 28 U.S.C § 1331(b).

Section 1331 gives district courts federal question jurisdiction over a federal constitutional claim brought under § 1983.

Glazer v. The Private Residences at Ontario Place Condominium Assoc. · filed 2023-02-03

The court thus may exercise federal question jurisdiction over this claim and supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining related claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a constitutional claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a separate showing that it raises a significant federal issue.

Davenport v. City of Brundidge · filed 2023-03-30

However, as the Supreme Court explicitly laid out, constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 belong in the first type of “arising under” jurisdiction. Id. at 312. In fact, § 1983 cases are the quintessential example of this type, in that the statute was specifically intended to create a cause of action for claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Accordingly, this Court does not need to determine whether a “significant federal issue” exists in this case.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting a § 1983 claim for violations of federal constitutional rights.

(PC) Temple v. Gibson · filed 2023-06-01

Plainly, plaintiff has raised a federal claim over which this court has jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over § 1983 claims alleging violations of federal constitutional rights.

Tew v. Town of Stony Point · filed 2023-09-20

Indeed, this Court firmly retains subject matter jurisdiction over the claims at issue here, arising principally from federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendants have violated his federal constitutional rights.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when an amended complaint asserts a Section 1983 claim.

SHI v. MEYERS MANAGEMENT CO., INC. · filed 2024-01-10

However, Mr. Shi’s Section 1983 claim in his amended complaint now creates federal-question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and allows the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Shi’s state-law claims because they “form part of the same case or controversy[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1376. Thus, Meyers’s argument that the amended complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction fails.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

El v. Chun · filed 2024-03-29

Second, El’s request that the R&R be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction likewise fails, as plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to § 1983, which fall within the heartland of this Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a pro se plaintiff’s constitutional claims even if the complaint does not cite § 1983.

McIntosh-Luis v. Petty,Jr. · filed 2024-07-29

Plaintiff’s failure to cite to Section 1983 does not deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint attempting to plead a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Prosser v. Shappert · filed 2025-01-16

But Plaintiffs attempt to plead a § 1983 claim, which does give rise to federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when an amended complaint expressly asserts a § 1983 claim.

LJ Remainder LLC v. City of Atlanta · filed 2025-02-06

Because the proposed amendment now explicitly seeks relief through a § 1983 claim, the Court finds that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, mooting Atlanta’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over Section 1983 claims alleging constitutional violations, even when a federal land patent alone would not establish jurisdiction.

Bossart v. King County · filed 2025-09-10

But Plaintiffs also assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) alleging constitutional violations, which clearly invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a § 1983 action when the complaint states a viable § 1983 claim.

Eisa · filed 2025-12-19

An action seeking recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 can be sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction provided that the complaint states a viable claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim because it arises under federal law.

Bowie v. Hodge · filed 2020-06-05

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Competition in Contracting Act.

Mark Dunning Industries, Inc. v. Perry · filed 1995-05-15

28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers subject matter jurisdiction on district courts in disputes arising under the Competition in Contracting Act.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Competition in Contracting Act and its regulations.

Mark Dunning Industries, Inc. v. Perry · filed 1995-02-02

28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers subject matter jurisdiction on district courts in disputes arising under the Competition in Contracting ... Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3551, et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a federal procurement dispute arising under the Armed Services Procurement Act, the Small Business Act, and their regulations.

Choctaw Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. United States · filed 1985-05-07

Such jurisdiction must be provided by other statutory authority. That authority is provided in this case by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (1982); Choctaw's dispute "arises under" The Armed Services Procurement Act, the Small Business Act, and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a federal procurement dispute arising under the Armed Services Procurement Act, the Small Business Act, and their regulations.

Choctaw Manufacturing Co. v. United States · filed 1985-05-07

Such jurisdiction must be provided by other statutory authority. That authority is provided in this case by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982); Choctaw’s dispute “arises under” The Armed Services Procurement Act, the Small Business Act, and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

Section 1331 and § 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act supply jurisdiction over procurement decisions alleged to violate statutory competition requirements.

Aero Corp. v. Department of the Navy · filed 1983-02-16

Jurisdiction has been and is now founded upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06, as applied to procurement decisions alleged to contravene the statutory obligations of competition.

Section 1331 permits a district court to award injunctive relief to a disappointed bidder challenging a federal procurement decision.

National Gateway Telecom, Inc. v. Aldridge · filed 1988-12-19

The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331(a) in that the case arises under the laws of the United States. A district court has jurisdiction to award injunctive relief to a disappointed bidder in a government contract case.

Equitable review of a completed administrative forfeiture under Section 1331 is limited to constitutionally sufficient due process rather than strict compliance with statutory requirements.

United States v. Welles Bacon · filed 2013-11-08

We note that nothing in this opinion limits or otherwise addresses the review available to forfeitures other than those viewed through the lens of § 1331. Here, the Court construes the pro se petitioner’s claim as an unrequested equitable constitutional remedy, so we review only for constitutionally sufficient due process, not for strict compliance with statutory requirements.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over federal questions but does not authorize them to refer those actions to bankruptcy courts.

Lunan v. Jones (In re Lunan) · filed 2012-11-21

However, a district court’s jurisdiction over federal questions such as plaintiffs civil rights claim is derived from 28 U.S.C. § 1331. There is no statutory authority for a district court to refer 28 U.S.C. § 1331 actions to bankruptcy courts.

Section 1331 is not the proper jurisdictional basis for claims arising from bankruptcy matters; the bankruptcy jurisdiction grant applies.

Guetling v. Household Financial Services, Inc. · filed 2004-07-20

Initially, the Court notes that, while not ultimately fatal to the Plaintiffs’ claims, the jurisdictional grant over bankruptcy matters would be the proper basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, as opposed to the general federal question jurisdiction set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a complaint asserting claims that arise under the bankruptcy laws.

Drew v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. · filed 1995-07-26

While the parties disagree with respect to whether this Court has jurisdiction, it is clear that the plaintiffs complaint asserts claims that arise under the bankruptcy laws. As such, this Court, like the bankruptcy court, has jurisdiction over this case. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1334.

Section 1331 supplies an alternative jurisdictional basis for an adversary proceeding seeking relief from the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay.

Walter E. Heller & Co. Southeast, Inc. v. Matlock Trailer Corp. (In Re Matlock Trailer Corp.) · filed 1983-02-23

If the commencement of such an action does not itself fall within the definition of a “matter” or a “proceeding” in bankruptcy, then it is at least an action arising under the laws of the United States and within the jurisdiction conferred upon this court by 28 U.S.C. 1331.

Section 1331 does not independently provide jurisdiction over state-law tort claims merely because they are related to a bankruptcy proceeding.

M.S v. Inc. v. Bank of Boston-Western Massachusetts, N.A. (In Re Martin Specialty Vehicles, Inc.) · filed 1987-03-11

No federal questions are raised by the Plaintiffs’ complaint except for bankruptcy matters. ... Therefore, jurisdiction for the Plaintiffs’ state law claims is based solely on the fact that M.S.V., Specialty, and Martin are debtors before this Court.

Section 1331 supplies federal question jurisdiction over causes of action created by the Bankruptcy Code, including claims under 11 U.S.C. §§ 363(n), 549, and 550.

Hawkins v. Eads (In Re Eads) · filed 1991-12-31

Because proceedings based on causes of action created by sections 363(n), 549, and 550 “arise under” title 11, the plaintiff's claims in the primary lawsuit attacking the sale of Quail Meadows as collusive and unauthorized are firmly anchored on federal jurisdiction. Indeed, there are two anchors. In addition to federal bankruptcy jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1334, there is federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, for causes of action such as these that arise under federal statute.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction when a challenge to federal vessel regulation raises questions about Congress's Commerce Clause power, even if admiralty jurisdiction is unavailable.

Land and Lake Tours, Inc. v. Drew Lewis, Secretary of Department of Transportation United States Coast Guard · filed 1984-07-12

We find, however, that the issues before the district court raised federal questions involving Congress’ power under the commerce clause, and jurisdiction therefore obtained under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim for equitable relief based directly on the Supremacy Clause, even when the federal statute involved has no express cause of action.

Hott v. City of San Jose · filed 2000-04-13

This Court has jurisdiction of, inter alia, “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Nevertheless, because Plaintiffs action also is based directly on the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const, art. VI, cl. 2., the Court concludes that it has subject-matter jurisdiction of the instant litigation at least to the extent that Plaintiff seeks equitable relief.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim seeking to enjoin a local ordinance as preempted by federal law, even when the federal statute creates no private right of action.

At&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. v. City of Austin, Tex. · filed 1997-08-21

The plaintiff instead asserts federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 under two distinct theories. ... It is apparent that the Court has jurisdiction by virtue of AT & T’s Supremacy Clause claim, its second basis for asserting jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over suits seeking to enjoin local regulation on the ground that federal law preempts it under the Supremacy Clause.

The Wilderness Society v. Kane County, Utah · filed 2006-08-24

The Supreme Court has made clear that federal courts have jurisdiction over suits to enjoin state officials from interfering with federal rights: “A Plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief from state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is pre-empted by a federal statute which, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, must prevail, thus presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to resolve.” Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96 n. 14, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983).

Section 1331 supports declaratory and injunctive challenges to the constitutionality of a state statute even when the federal constitutional claim could also be raised before the state body enforcing that statute.

Home Depot, Inc. v. Louisiana Ex Rel. Guste · filed 1984-06-08

In ... summary, we hold that where a party seeks injunctive and declaratory relief based upon the unconstitutionality of a state statute, and where there are no other concrete impediments to a proper exercise of federal-question jurisdiction, the mere fact that the constitutional claims might be raised before a state administrative body charged with enforcement of the statute does not alone deprive the court of jurisdiction.” ... Based upon the Fifth Circuit’s holding in this regard, we find that the instant case is properly within the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over claims seeking to enjoin state administrative orders as federally preempted and unconstitutional.

Martori Bros. Distributors v. James-Massengale · filed 1986-01-30

The district court had subject matter jurisdiction in this action. The Employers are seeking to enjoin the enforcement of various ALRB orders on the grounds they are preempted by Federal law and are unconstitutional. Federal questions are thus presented and jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits a plaintiff to bring a federal action seeking to enjoin state officials from enforcing an allegedly unconstitutional state regulation.

J. Filiberto Sanitation, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection · filed 1988-09-08

Thus, we reject the state’s argument that the district court had no subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over a facial constitutional challenge to a state law when resolving it does not require review of a state court decision in a particular case.

Dubinka v. Judges of Superior Court of State of California · filed 1994-04-08

This rule arises from the interplay of two jurisdictional statutes: 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, which grants district courts original jurisdiction over "civil actions arising under" federal law, and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1257, which grants the Supreme Court the right to review "final judgments ... rendered by the highest court of a State." ... Although a federal district court does not have jurisdiction to review constitutional challenges to a state court's decision, the court does have jurisdiction over a general constitutional challenge that does not require review of a final state court decision in a particular case. ... Therefore, the district court did have subject matter jurisdiction to hear appellants' facial challenges to the constitutionality of Proposition 115.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a facial constitutional challenge to a federal statute when review of the relevant agency order would also occur in district court.

Action For Children's Television v. Federal Communications Commission · filed 1995-07-18

Because a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a federal statute raises a federal question, the district court would ordinarily have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. When an agency is involved, however, the issue is more complicated. ... The district court was authorized to decide this case without need for an exception to TRAC because it is the district court that would have original jurisdiction over an FCC forfeiture proceeding.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to a state statute.

Vivian Tankships Corp. v. Castro · filed 1998-10-26

“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. This case presents a constitutional challenge to Louisiana’s nonresident attachment statute, La.C.Civ. Pro. 3501, et seq. under the United States Constitution. Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this court has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a general constitutional challenge to state adoption laws that does not require review of a particular state court judgment.

Johnson v. Monica Rodrigues (Orozco) Sealed Defendant-98-550-1 Sealed Defendant-98-550-2 Adoption Center of Choic · filed 2000-10-12

We are convinced that under this principle the federal district court in the instant suit did have jurisdiction over the discrete portion of Plaintiff Johnson’s complaint herein in which he made a general challenge to the Utah adoption laws and separately asked that the district court “Declare the Utah State Adoption laws invalid.” Complaint, ¶ X-G, App. at 24.