28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over facial constitutional challenges to a statute when the challenge is independent of agency action, even if review of agency determinations is assigned to a court of appeals.

Live365, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Board · filed 2010-02-23

Accordingly, the plaintiff is “not jurisdictionally barred from bringing this action in [this Court] ... because TRAC does not deprive [this] [C]ourt of its general federal question jurisdiction to consider a facial challenge to a statute’s constitutionality so long as that challenge is not [being] raised in a suit challenging the validity of agency action taken pursuant to the challenged statute or in a suit that is collateral to one challenging the validity of such agency action.”

Section 1331 permits a district court to hear an independent facial constitutional challenge to an agency statute despite a separate route for appellate review of agency determinations.

Live365, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Board · filed 2010-02-23

This action therefore falls squarely within the exception recognized by Time Warner and Free Enterprise, which authorizes this Court to exercise jurisdiction over a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to state statutes.

United Food & Commercial Workers Local 99 v. Brewer · filed 2011-09-23

The Court has jurisdiction to entertain constitutional challenges to state statutes. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to state firearms licensing decisions, even when state law directs licensing appeals to state courts.

Brown v. Healey · filed 2021-03-19

As Delmonte correctly notes, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 131(f) permits an applicant to appeal denial of an application for an LTC only in the state courts. Indeed, that is the route Brown followed when challenging the 2011 denial. Brown’s claim here, however, is not that Delmonte acted beyond the bounds of the discretion granted him under state law. Instead, Brown asserts that this court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, that Delmonte’s decision abridges his Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that the relief he seeks is “restoration of [his] full constitutional rights.” Am. Compl. 3-4 [#30]; see also Pls.’ Resp. to Def.’s Answer 4 [#38] (referencing 42 U.S.C. § 1983). To the extent that Brown mounts a challenge of constitutional dimension, this court has jurisdiction.

Federally approved rules of a private commodity exchange are not themselves laws of the United States for Section 1331 purposes, so ordinary disputes over those rules do not arise under federal law.

Bernstein v. Lind-Waldock & Company and Chicago Mercantile Exchange · filed 1984-06-18

It would greatly extend the meaning of the words “laws ... of the United States” in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to so describe the rules of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Section 1331 supports continuing jurisdiction to interpret, apply, and enforce a federal consent decree entered under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction.

United States v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago · filed 1984-08-13

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction to declare and enforce the rights and obligations of the parties under the Consent Decree approved by and entered as a judgment of this Court September 24, 1980. This Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1345 to approve and enter the Consent Decree, has continuing jurisdiction under these statutes and has retained jurisdiction by the terms of the Consent Decree to interpret, apply and enforce its provisions.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a prison-conditions complaint alleging that state officials violated the federal Constitution, permitting the court to approve an agreed remedial decree.

Duran v. Carruthers · filed 1988-02-11

Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, as observed previously, set forth extensive factual allegations, relating to virtually every facet of the operation of the Penitentiary of New Mexico. Plaintiffs’ first claim for relief alleged that, on whole, the factual conditions at the Penitentiary of New Mexico deprived the plaintiff class of rights secured by the United States Constitution. As a threshold matter, then, federal jurisdiction over the civil action existed by virtue of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3).

Section 1331 covers an application to enforce a consent decree settling a federal RICO action when the application arises from that action and seeks to enforce its settlement terms.

United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · filed 1996-11-08

Because the Government’s application both arises from this underlying RICO prosecution and seeks to enforce the settlement terms of this RICO prosecution, this Court finds that the instant application arises under federal law.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim seeking relief that directly challenges a provision of a federal consent decree.

Sweeney v. City of Steubenville · filed 2001-06-15

Further, the relief sought by the Plaintiff, although framed solely in terms of state law, directly challenges a specific provision of the Consent Decree. Consequently, based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1651(a).

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over federal claims, and a court that enters a consent decree resolving those claims retains jurisdiction to enforce it.

Jeff D. v. Kempthorne · filed 2004-04-23

The complaint alleged violations of federal constitutional and statutory rights. ... The district court therefore had subject matter jurisdiction over the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Once the decree was entered, the district court retained jurisdiction to enforce it, see California v. Randtron, 284 F.3d 969, 974(9th Cir.2002), and the text of the agreement explicitly provided that the district court retained jurisdiction for enforcement.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction to review a Medicaid funding disallowance under 42 U.S.C. § 1316(d), with review governed by the Administrative Procedure Act.

State of Ill. v. US DEPT. OF H. & HS · filed 1984-07-07

Because Defendants' decision in this case involves a disallowance, under 42 U.S.C. § 1316(d), rather than a determination of plan nonconformity, under 42 U.S.C. § 1316(a), this court has jurisdiction to review that decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and our review is governed by § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction to review a Medicaid funding disallowance under 42 U.S.C. § 1316(d), with review governed by the Administrative Procedure Act.

Illinois ex rel. Illinois Department of Public Aid v. United States Department of Health & Human Services · filed 1984-07-07

Because Defendants’ decision in this case involves a disallowance, under 42 U.S.C. § 1316(d), rather than a determination of plan nonconformity, under 42 U.S.C. § 1316(a), this court has jurisdiction to review. that decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1331,_ and. our review is governed by § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706.

Section 1331 supplies general district-court jurisdiction for federal agency-disallowance review when no statute specifies another forum, while the APA waives sovereign immunity but is not itself a source of jurisdiction.

Virginia ex rel. Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services v. Bowen · filed 1988-02-03

Without specific statutory language, the jurisdiction of this court must be based on a general district court jurisdiction statute. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982), district courts have subject matter jurisdiction in “all civil cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... The APA is not itself an independent source of jurisdiction. ... It is the conclusion of this court that district courts are best suited to review disallowance disputes. Congress explicitly provided for reconsideration of disallowances but in an unspecified forum.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over Fourth Amendment claims against federal officers; whether a Bivens remedy is available is a merits question.

Pompy v. Monroe Bank and Trust · filed 2024-02-28

Bishop’s pleading challenge properly is viewed as one attacking the merits and not the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a Bivens claim alleging a constitutional violation when the existence of a protected interest remains a merits question.

Gross v. Griffin · filed 2011-07-06

In the instant case, if the Court assumes the existence of an interest protected by the Fifth Amendment due process clause — a merits concern rather than a jurisdictional concern — and takes as true the allegation that discrimination took place, there is a constitutional controversy over which this Court has federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over Bivens claims even when the challenged conduct is not reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.

La Compania Ocho, Inc. v. United States Forest Service · filed 1995-01-23

That the APA does not form the basis for review does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction to hear Bivens claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies the jurisdictional basis required for a Bivens damages claim alleging violations of federal constitutional rights.

Lopez v. Aran · filed 1984-10-31

Plaintiff has invoked the jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as required.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a direct damages action alleging a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

MacKay v. United States Postal Service · filed 1985-01-14

Plaintiff alleges “cruel and unusual treatment of a physically handicapped employee” in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This court has jurisdiction of a civil action arising under the Constitution of the United States’ 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A direct action for damages will lie for violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Section 1331 may confer jurisdiction to award damages and other relief for constitutional torts committed by federal officials.

Hickson v. Burkhart · filed 1986-05-05

Nevertheless this Court may have subject matter jurisdiction granted by the federal common law and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to award damages and perhaps other relief occasioned by constitutional torts, that is, by infringements of Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected interests through the actions or inactions of federal officials.

A constitutional damages action against federal officials arises under Section 1331 rather than Section 1983.

Spradley v. Spaniol · filed 1988-05-04

This cause of action arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982), not 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) as stated in the complaint.

A damages claim against a federal officer for wrongful incarceration may proceed under Section 1331 through the Bivens doctrine rather than under Section 1983.

Weekly v. U.S. Parole Commission · filed 1988-12-02

Since the petitioner names only one individual, Benjamin Baer, who is an officer of the United States Parole Commission, his claim for monetary damages for wrongful incarceration cannot be brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, but, instead, can be brought under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 under the ... Bivens ... doctrine.

A Section 1331 Bivens action against federal officials must allege deprivation of a constitutional right.

Schifanelli v. U.S. Government National Park Service Assateque Island National Seashore · filed 1989-02-21

A suit against federal officials must state a claim for deprivation of a constitutional right.

Section 1331(a) supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a Bivens claim alleging that federal officials violated substantive due process.

American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. v. Meese · filed 1989-03-24(a)

So construed, the court clearly possesses federal question jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’ claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

A constitutional damages action invoking Section 1331 must allege a deprivation of a federal constitutional right; a claim with no arguable constitutional basis is dismissed.

Moore v. U.S. Attorney General · filed 1990-05-18

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet the requirements for a cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and must therefore be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The purpose of a civil rights action is to remedy deprivations of federal constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to demonstrate any such violations. Accordingly, the claims lack an arguable legal basis for imposing liability on the defendants.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a Bivens claim alleging that a federal official violated constitutional rights.

Karacsonyi v. Radloff · filed 1995-01-11

However, in construing Karacsonyi's pro se complaint liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), the court will treat this claim as a Bivens action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), with jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a Bivens claim, and expiration of the limitations period does not defeat that jurisdiction.

Daniel R. Leavell and Eva L. Leavell v. Kieffer · filed 1999-08-19

Neither does a statute of limitations affect the district court’s jurisdiction. ... Jurisdiction is supplied by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because a claim under Bivens presents a federal question.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a federal constitutional claim even when the availability of a Bivens remedy is disputed.

Harper v. Urbano · filed 2009-08-18

Although the district court dismissed Mr. Harper’s prisoner complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, this was error. ... As we have previously stated, however, whether a court should imply a Bivens remedy is not a question of subject matter jurisdiction. ... Thus, the district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to consider ... Smith’s Eighth Amendment claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over Bivens actions.

Bishop v. Bennett · filed 2025-08-22

And the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 is only a jurisdictional grant and does not itself create a statutory lien from a federal court order.

Levine v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund (In Re Ottawa Cartage, Inc.) · filed 1985-11-08

If Judge Moran’s order created a “lien” at all, ... the lien did not arise “solely by force of” Section 1331.

A properly pleaded claim arises under section 1331 when a substantial dispute over federal law forms a direct and essential element of the cause of action and controls the result.

Utley v. Varian Associates, Inc. · filed 1985-09-26

A suit arises under federal law within 28 U.S.C. § 1331 if the complaint, properly pleaded, presents a substantial dispute over the effect of federal law, and the result turns on the federal question____ A substantial proposition of federal law must form ‘a direct and essential element of plaintiff’s cause of action.’ ... Application of this standard to plaintiff’s case compels the conclusion that jurisdiction is proper.

An action arises under federal law for § 1331 purposes when the complaint seeks a federally granted remedy, requires construction of a federal statute, or requires federal legal principles to vindicate a distinctive federal policy.

Tempo, Inc. v. City of Gladstone Housing Commission · filed 1984-07-17

An action arises under the laws of the United States if and only if the complaint seeks a remedy expressly granted by a federal law or if it requires the construction of a federal statute or a distinctive policy of a federal statute requires the application of federal legal principles for its disposition.

Section 1331's arising-under language does not itself create a private right of action and, standing alone, does not supply jurisdiction when the underlying source of law provides none.

Handel v. Artukovic · filed 1985-01-31

Thus, while the “violation” language of section 1350 may be interpreted as explicitly granting a cause of action, the “arising under” language of section 1331 cannot be so interpreted. Section 1331, standing alone, does not give the Court jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction when a civil action arises under a federal statute, including an ADEA action that may proceed without prior filing in a nonexistent state deferral forum.

Dixon v. Stephenson Inc. · filed 1985-02-12

Subject matter jurisdiction is established in a civil suit when the cause of action arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). Under the ADEA an individual may bring suit for age discrimination “in any court of competent jurisdiction for such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purpose of this chapter.” 29 U.S.C. § 626(c)(1). Plaintiff’s case arises under the ADEA and, therefore, in the absence of an appropriate deferral State agency with which to first file, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

A civil RICO claim arises under federal law within Section 1331 and therefore falls within a district court's original jurisdiction and is removable under Section 1441(a).

Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co. · filed 1988-05-16

Because the RICO claim is one “arising under the laws of the United States” it falls within the district court’s original jurisdiction and is thus removable pursuant to section 1441(a). 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441 (1982).

Section 1331’s “arising under” language is interpreted identically to the same language in §1338(a), so precedents under the two provisions apply interchangeably.

Gunn v. Minton · filed 2013-05-28

Adhering to the demands of “[l]inguistic consistency,” we have interpreted the phrase “arising under” in both sections identically, applying our §1331 and §1338(a) precedents interchange- ably.

Section 1331 uses the same “arising under” test for federal-question jurisdiction that Exchange Act § 27(a) uses for exclusive jurisdiction over Exchange Act suits.

Turbeville v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · filed 2017-11-01

Hence, we apply the same test to determine whether federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising under the Exchange Act as we do to determine whether the district courts have original jurisdiction over suits under the general federal-question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a substantial constitutional claim, but not allegations that are wholly insubstantial, meritless, or foreclosed by controlling precedent.

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians v. Donovan · filed 1984-07-17

Where a substantial federal question is presented by the complaint in question, a district court has jurisdiction over the action and may exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining claims. ... Thus, a complaint alleging constitutional violations should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction only where the constitutional allegations are wholly insubstantial or without merit, or foreclosed by prior cases which have settled the question.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists over a pleaded federal constitutional claim unless the claim is immaterial and made solely to obtain jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial or frivolous.

Reuber v. United States of America (Two Cases.) Melvin D. Reuber v. Food Chemical News (Two Cases.) · filed 1985-01-23

Under this lenient standard, subject matter jurisdiction over Reuber’s federal claims against Litton and Bionetics is clearly present.

A complaint seeking recovery directly under the Constitution or federal law establishes Section 1331 jurisdiction unless the asserted federal claim is wholly insubstantial or frivolous.

Lojeski v. Boandl · filed 1985-01-23

Where a complaint seeks recovery directly under the Constitution or federal laws, federal jurisdiction is established pursuant to § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when asserted constitutional claims are factually insubstantial and legally frivolous.

Fehrmann v. Phillips · filed 1985-06-13

While she alleges that her claims are brought pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution, her complaint is so insubstantial on a factual basis and so completely lacking in any legal substance as to preclude any proper finding of subject matter jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331, establishing the Court’s authority to hear cases involving federal questions, or any other statute prescribing the boundaries of the federal judicial authority.

A Section 1331 claim based on alleged federal-law violations may be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction only when the claimed violations are completely meritless.

Simanonok v. Simanonok · filed 1986-04-29

Where the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction is based on alleged violations of federal law, a district court may not dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) unless it determines that the claimed violations are completely merit-less. ... The lack of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is, of course, conceptually indistinguishable from lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction when a complaint alleges nonfrivolous claims under federal statutes or the Constitution even if the statutes' applicability is substantially disputed.

Patriarca v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 1986-07-16

Federal question jurisdiction is however supported under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 which has been alleged in the Amended Complaint. ... When reviewing a jurisdictional question based on a federal question, the non-moving party must show that he has alleged a claim under federal law and that the claim is not frivolous. ... In this action, Plaintiff has met this burden. Considering the fact that Plaintiff’s claims involve alleged violations of federal statutes and the Fourth Amendment, and although there are substantial questions concerning the applicability of the statutes to this action, there are non-frivolous federal questions presented. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a purported federal claim that is implausible or completely devoid of merit.

Keeran v. Office of Personnel Management · filed 1987-08-26

In Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974), the Supreme Court held that a case brought under the federal question statute could be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if 'implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit.' ... It is clear, under either view of the jurisdictional basis for this complaint, plaintiff has failed to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over substantial civil RICO claims even when diversity jurisdiction is defectively pleaded.

DOES 1-60 v. Republic Health Corp. · filed 1987-08-28

This is, however, a case arising under the laws of the United States, to wit RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964. On this basis, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The plaintiffs' federal claims are not so insubstantial as to deny the Court federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when a complaint fails to allege facts establishing the asserted federal securities-law claim.

Menides v. the Colonial Group, Inc. · filed 1987-10-26

While these motions are based on somewhat different grounds, I hold that plaintiff’s complaint has failed to assert facts that bring the matter within the jurisdiction of this court under the federal securities laws, and thus dismiss the case under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).

Section 1331 does not support jurisdiction over federal claims that are insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, and without a substantial federal claim the court lacks power to hear pendent state claims.

Finkelstein v. Barthelemy · filed 1988-02-08

Having determined that plaintiff has stated no federal cause of action under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a), the two subject matter jurisdictional bases pleaded in the complaint, this Court must determine whether it may or should exercise jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims. ... As shown in Part 111(A) above, the Court lácks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s alleged federal claims because those claims state no federal cause of action; plaintiff’s federal claims are, in other words, “insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense.” ... Perforce, then, this Court lacks the power to assert pendant jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s state law claims, even though they arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as the (alleged) federal claims.

A complaint filed originally in federal court establishes Section 1331 jurisdiction by pleading an arguably plausible implied federal cause of action unless the federal theory is immaterial, jurisdictionally contrived, or wholly insubstantial and frivolous, even if later precedent rejects the implied remedy.

In Re Bendectin Litigation. · filed 1988-08-30

We modify the district court order insofar as we find that the district court did have federal question jurisdiction over those Ohio plaintiffs who filed their complaints in federal court. ... As the case law indicates, a substantial federal question is presented as long as the pleadings invoking federal question jurisdiction are not “so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit,” “wholly insubstantial,” “obviously frivolous,” “plainly unsubstantial,” or “no longer open to discussion.” ... Until this court or the Supreme Court holds that there is no implied private right of action under the FDCA, the opposite position cannot be deemed either frivolous or unsubstantial.

Section 1331 supplies federal subject-matter jurisdiction when the complaint states colorable claims under the Constitution and federal law.

Mintz v. Barthelemy · filed 1989-10-03

Because Mintz’ complaint states color-able claims for relief under the constitution and laws of the United States, the Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim lacks any legal substance.

United States v. City of Menominee, Mich. · filed 1989-10-26

Federal question jurisdiction does not exist, however, where the alleged federal claim lacks any legal substance. ... Here, the CWA does not even arguably support MPC’s claim against USEPA.

Section 1331 does not support jurisdiction when the asserted federal claims are wholly insubstantial and frivolous and the plaintiff can articulate no federal right or supporting facts.

Sakovich v. City of Kankakee · filed 1990-03-23

The plaintiff is unable to articulate a specific constitutional deprivation or infringement of a federal right, and the court is unable to discern one. The plaintiff alleges that jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(l)(4), but no facts are set forth which could support that conclusion. ... It is therefore ordered that the complaint is dismissed as frivolous and that the court, therefore, lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no basis for declaratory or injunctive relief when the pleadings identify no colorable constitutional, civil-rights, or other federal statutory claim.

Winslow v. Romer · filed 1990-12-17

Winslow appears to base his request for such relief on federal question and civil rights jurisdiction; however, neither the complaint nor this motion indicate a colorable constitutional, civil rights or other federal statutory basis for his claims against Judge Matheson. Therefore, there is no basis to order declaratory or injunctive relief.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when the asserted federal claims are insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, and such claims cannot support pendent jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Town Of West Hartford v. Operation Rescue · filed 1990-12-26

This action was brought pursuant to the statute granting federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (1988). ... For the reasons that follow, we agree that there is no subject matter jurisdiction over this action. ... Here, since the federal claims are, in fact, "insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense," and the case is only in a preliminary stage, there is no basis for the exercise of pendent jurisdiction over the Town's state law claims against defendants.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when none of the federal statutes invoked in the complaint permits the plaintiffs to maintain their claims.

Blank v. Heineman · filed 1991-01-11

As the Court has found that plaintiffs cannot maintain their action under the federal statutes as alleged, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Further, diversity of citizenship jurisdiction does not exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Therefore, as this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter, the Court will grant defendants’ motions and dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction when Supreme Court precedent squarely forecloses the federal claim.

Ortiz v. Sidley-Mackie · filed 2025-11-19

Here, Supreme Court precedent squarely forecloses Ortiz’s § 1983 claim, so even though a § 1983 claim is a federal one, federal question jurisdiction is lacking.

Section 1331’s general federal-question grant does not permit a district court to decide a federal claim initially committed to an agency’s primary jurisdiction.

Engelhardt v. Consolidated Rail Corp. · filed 1984-09-12

The Court holds that no jurisdiction exists for the cause of action arising from the alleged violation of the ICC order and thus it is dismissed in light of the ICC’s primary jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give federal district courts jurisdiction over claims that Congress placed within an agency’s exclusive jurisdiction, even when federal law preempts state claims.

Ramsay v. Steeltech Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 1995-08-11

If, however, Congress gives a regulatory agency the power to resolve those disputes, removal is impossible because the federal courts still lack jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

A party invoking section 1331 bears the burden of affirmatively establishing federal jurisdiction.

Carr v. the Times Picayune Publishing Corp. · filed 1985-03-22

It is well settled that the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court has the burden of affirmatively establishing that jurisdiction exists.

The party invoking federal-question jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its prerequisites.

Duran v. St. Louis Blues Hockey Club, L.P. · filed 2024-06-10

As the party invoking jurisdiction, Defendant Fair STL has the burden of establishing that all prerequisites to jurisdiction have been satisfied. ... Fair STL does not oppose Plaintiff’s motion, and therefore does not attempt to meet its burden.

A plaintiff invoking § 1331 bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction; conclusory assertions of jurisdiction are insufficient.

Garland v. Gilmer · filed 2024-09-30

Plaintiff has invoked the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and it is thus Plaintiff’s burden to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter. ... Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions of the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter are unconvincing and insufficient for Plaintiff to carry his burden of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is displaced for employee organizations’ claims arising from federal employees’ firing when the Civil Service Reform Act’s specialized review scheme governs those claims.

National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought · filed 2025-08-15

District courts usually have jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but a special statutory review scheme may displace that jurisdiction. ... But a specialized-review scheme governs such claims and ousts the district courts of their arising-under jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give district courts jurisdiction over federal employees' duty-of-fair-representation claims because the Civil Service Reform Act places those claims within the FLRA's exclusive jurisdiction.

Warren v. Local 1759, American Federation of Government Employees · filed 1985-07-05

Because Congress considered and rejected a § 301 parallel in the CSRA, we conclude that Congress did not intend for federal courts to have jurisdiction over such duty of fair representation claims by federal employees. ... Based upon the foregoing analysis, we hold that Congress conferred exclusive jurisdiction over a federal employees’ duty of fair representation claim in the FLRA.

Section 1331 does not let a federal employee bypass the Civil Service Reform Act’s exclusive review scheme for a removal decision.

Bragg v. Timothy Keohane, L.T. McKnelly Jerry Walford, and Norm Carlson · filed 1987-06-02

Bragg argues that the district court was wrong as a matter of law in holding that the CSRA is her exclusive remedy because the CSRA remedies do not adequately protect her constitutional rights. Even if that were correct, which it is not, ... the district court had no jurisdiction over her suit.

The Civil Service Reform Act’s exclusive remedial scheme precludes direct district-court review under preexisting general jurisdictional statutes such as Section 1331 when the Act confines review of the personnel action to its own procedures.

Charles R. RYON, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Colonel Peter J. O’NEILL, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees · filed 1990-01-24

To hold, as plaintiff asks us here, that personnel actions are reviewable in federal courts under general jurisdictional statutes enacted before the CSRA would mean a return to the chaotic conditions which the CSRA was specifically crafted to remedy. ... In short, the text of the CSRA, the structure of review it establishes, and the legislative history of the Act, all lead ineludibly to the conclusion that Congress intended review of agency reassignment decisions to be confined to the specific procedures set out in the text of the CSRA.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction to review a federal employee grievance governed by the Civil Service Reform Act outside that Act’s remedies.

Andersen v. United States · filed 1993-10-05

That APA actions in particular may be precluded has already been established in this circuit, Veit, 746 F.2d at 511, and others. ... The analysis with respect to Section 1331 and Section 1361 jurisdiction is, in any event, the same as that for APA jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is likely precluded by the Civil Service Reform Act when a covered federal employee challenges an adverse employment action on constitutional grounds.

Rydie v. Biden · filed 2021-11-19

But Congress can “impliedly preclude jurisdiction by creating a statutory scheme of administrative adjudication and delayed judicial review in a particular court.” Id. (citations omitted). ... To the extent Plaintiffs challenge their future terminations, they likely have to proceed through the CSRA process, even though they assert constitutional challenges.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a constitutional due-process claim when the CSRA does not preclude its review.

Washburn v. Court Ordered Benefits Section · filed 2023-03-11

The Court has jurisdiction over her due-process claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The MSPB and, by extension, the Federal Circuit, lack jurisdiction to hear constitutional due-process claims in this posture.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over federal employees’ federal-law claims that do not challenge personnel actions covered by the Civil Service Reform Act.

Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden · filed 2023-03-23

True, § 1331 jurisdiction remains undisturbed for claims that do not challenge federal personnel actions.

Section 1331 does not give district courts independent jurisdiction over federal employees’ claims of discharge for union activity when the Civil Service Reform Act provides the exclusive review procedures.

Carter v. Kurzejeski · filed 1983-06-01

Even though Congress did not directly address every conceivable avenue of relief for federal employees discharged solely for union membership and participation, we are convinced that the comprehensive statutory framework created in the 1978 legislation was intended as an exclusive means of redress in this situation. Carter and Denson cannot totally avoid this framework by invocation of the general federal question jurisdictional statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a fair-representation claim involving a state governmental employer because the claim does not arise under the federal labor statute.

Greene v. Hawes · filed 1996-01-17

Ordinarily, an action brought by an employee against a union for breach of the duty of fair representation “arises under” Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), and thus falls within original federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... In this case, however, plaintiffs’ suit cannot “arise under” Section 301 because the employer, a state government unit, is exempted specifically from the definition of “employer” for purposes of Section 301. ... Whei’e a state governmental employer is involved, federal jurisdiction over such a suit does not exist.

Section 1331 makes a claim that a union breached its duty of fair representation justiciable in federal court.

Beck v. Communications Workers of America (C.W.A.) · filed 1985-10-24

Since it seems clear to us that plaintiffs have stated a good cause of action for a violation of section 8(a)(3) of the NLRA redressable under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1337 and 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185(a), as well as a claim of a violation of the duty of fair representation justiciable under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 and 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185(a), we shall deal with this question before addressing the right of plaintiffs to maintain a constitutional claim on the same facts.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims for breach of the duty of fair representation arising under federal labor law.

Sullivan v. Gelb · filed 2023-11-27

Because Mr. Sullivan’s claim against Mr. Wheeler for breach of the duty of fair representation arises under federal labor law, it confers federal-question jurisdiction on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 reaches claims requiring construction of a federal statute that applies to both federal entities and the District of Columbia Courts, even when an amendment addresses local D.C. needs.

Roth v. District of Columbia Courts · filed 2001-08-22

An issue requiring construction of the PPA, as it applies to the District of Columbia Courts, invokes federal question jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the issues in this case involve federal questions, which may confer subject-matter jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over remaining claims arising solely under District of Columbia law.

Trazell v. Wilmers · filed 2013-11-07

Here, there is no argument that there is federal question jurisdiction in this case because plaintiff’s only remaining claims are based on D.C. law and therefore do not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a challenge to a District Charter amendment that would alter the President’s and Congress’s roles in the District’s budget.

Council of the District of Columbia v. Gray · filed 2014-05-19

The Court is persuaded by Defendants’ arguments that this case unequivocally presents a federal question – whether the Council can unilaterally amend the District Charter to fundamentally alter the roles of the President and Congress with respect to the locally funded portion of the District’s budget.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim under a law applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia.

D.C. Ass'n of Chartered Pub. Sch. v. Dist. of Columbia · filed 2019-07-19

A claim under the School Reform Act cannot qualify for federal-question jurisdiction under that test. That is because the School Reform Act is not a “law of the United States” within the meaning of § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a law applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia.

Superior Court of the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act Attorney Selection Committee Superior Court Criminal Rul · filed 2022-11-14

But even assuming the dubious proposition that this action “arises under” the Court Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1366—not Rule 81(d)(3)—is controlling for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. And § 1366 provides that “references to laws of the United States or Acts of Congress do not include laws applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia.” 28 U.S.C. § 1366.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a prisoner's declaratory challenge to the calculation of parole eligibility when habeas corpus is not the exclusive remedy.

Chatman-Bey v. Edwin Meese, Iii, Attorney General of the United States · filed 1986-08-05

Counsel appointed for Chatman-Bey on appeal suggests that this action is most appropriately regarded as neither a habeas nor a mandamus petition, but as one invoking the court’s general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and requesting declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201. We agree and believe this case, initiated by a prisoner ... a proper one in which to deem the pleadings amended to show jurisdiction.

Section 1331 combined with the Administrative Procedure Act does not give district courts jurisdiction over monetary claims against the United States because the APA does not waive sovereign immunity for such claims.

Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority v. Regional Administrator · filed 1986-10-20

It points out that we found district court jurisdiction in Fairview under similar circumstances based upon the Administrative Procedure Act and the statute conferring original jurisdiction in federal question cases, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 701 et seq.; 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (1982). ... In Fairview, we expressly noted that jurisdiction under the theory there endorsed would not extend to a claim for money. ... The same conclusion would follow with respect to any monetary claim by virtue of the fact that the APA does not waive sovereign immunity in monetary claims cases.

Section 1331 and the Administrative Procedure Act do not waive federal sovereign immunity for an action seeking money damages, and exclusive jurisdiction over such a claim lies in the Court of Claims.

Fathman v. United States Navy · filed 1989-10-31

Even if Plaintiff’s complaint may be construed as a request for judicial review pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it is clear that 5 U.S.C. § 702 only operates as a waiver of sovereign immunity in actions under Sec...tion 1331 that do not involve money damages. ... Since Plaintiff is clearly seeking monetary damages and not equitable relief in his complaint, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these claims under 5 U.S.C. § 702 and the Court of Claims is vested with exclusive jurisdiction.

When the Administrative Procedure Act waives sovereign immunity, a proper claim under Section 1331 supplies substantive jurisdiction against the United States.

Sterling v. United States · filed 1990-10-12

Where sovereign immunity has been waived by the APA a proper claim brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the statute on which plaintiff relies, provides a substantive basis for jurisdiction against the United States.

Section 1331 and the APA do not keep an agency-review action in district court when the Claims Court provides an adequate remedy and APA Section 704 therefore withholds the needed sovereign-immunity waiver.

Ltc. John F. Mitchell v. The United States · filed 1991-04-11

Mitchell then filed a new complaint in district court (E.D.Va.) under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 28 U.S.C. § 1491. ... Regardless of whether Mitchell’s case is a disguised claim for money, 5 U.S.C. § 704 deprives the district court of jurisdiction. The Claims Court can provide “adequate review” sufficient to invoke Section 704’s bar on operation of the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not alone establish jurisdiction over a claim against the United States, but an APA claim may arise under it when another authority waives sovereign immunity.

Burni v. Frazier · filed 2008-03-05

Defendants correctly argue that the federal question statute does not, in itself, provide subject matter jurisdiction. However, subject matter jurisdiction under the APA does arise under the federal question statute.

A removing party relying on federal-question jurisdiction must specifically invoke Section 1331 and identify a statutory jurisdictional basis fitting the facts; an ERISA preemption provision cannot substitute for Section 1331.

Wright v. Sterling Investors Life Insurance · filed 1990-09-19

Instead of invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1331, defendants relied only upon 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a), the ERISA supersedure provision which in no way duplicates or can substitute for 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This court cannot be left to guess a valid statutory basis for its jurisdiction. It is the duty of the party invoking this court’s jurisdiction to point specifically to a statutory basis for jurisdiction and a statutory basis that fits the facts of the case.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to connect federal law to its cause of action; merely reciting a federal statute does not sufficiently allege federal question jurisdiction.

Mahan v. J.E.N. Jewels · filed 1991-10-17

District court jurisdiction is also available for civil actions "arising under" the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. While Mahan has recited section 1983 as the last paragraph of his amended complaint, it stands alone, with no introduction, and without any apparent connection to what precedes it in the amended complaint. Mahan has failed to indicate in any manner how this federal law might be related to his cause of action. This falls far short of alleging federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim framed under state law when the claim actually challenges federal tax laws and regulations.

Burda v. M. Ecker Company · filed 1992-01-21

Therefore, Burda’s challenge to Liberty Mutual’s withholding of attorney’s fees is in fact a challenge to federal income tax laws and regulations. As such, the action falls within the district court’s original jurisdiction because it “arises under” federal internal revenue statutes.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint framed under state law seeks relief available only under federal law.

Nkop v. City and County of San Francisco · filed 1992-03-03

Federal jurisdiction arises under section 1331 if a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint. 6 Id. ... Thus, although Nkop artfully pleaded his second action under state law, the relief was exclusively governed by federal law. Because the only remedy available to Nkop was federal, the case was removable to district court regardless of what was in the pleading.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a party disputes whether a state-court action is removable.

Adler v. Adler · filed 1994-09-06

An issue concerning the propriety of removal cannot be treated as a federal question of the kind which itself authorizes removal. Were such bootstrap removal recognized, mid-litigation removals would cause havoc in both federal and state tribunals and encourage obfuscation. Such an interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 has no support and would be contrary to the objectives set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 (the “just, speedy and inexpensive” determination of every action).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts only state-law claims, even if it refers vaguely to federal law or cites federal statutes solely to measure damages.

Avitts v. Amoco Production · filed 1995-05-03

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, "[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." ... However, it is also plain that when both federal and state remedies are available, plaintiff's election to proceed exclusively under state law does not give rise to federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint sufficiently alleges a constitutional claim, even if it expressly invokes diversity jurisdiction instead.

Burns v. Town of Lamoine · filed 1999-03-11

In light of these considerations, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ Complaint sufficiently alleges a basis for this Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a sufficiently pleaded federal statutory or constitutional basis to invoke federal question jurisdiction; vague allegations do not suffice.

Calon v. Apfel · filed 1999-04-26

Any other federal constitutional basis plaintiff may have attempted to plead is too vague, even with a liberal construction, to present the requisite federal question that would enable plaintiff to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint seeking damages and alleging sex-based disparate treatment raises a federal claim despite its state-law framing.

Perkins Ex Rel. Phillips v. Alamo Heights Independent School District · filed 2002-04-09

Because no diversity jurisdiction has been alleged, the issue before the Court is whether this action arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The fact plaintiff seeks damages and is alleging disparate treatment between the female cheerleaders and the male student athletes leads this Court to find a federal question is raised. Therefore, defendants’ removal is proper.

Section 1331 jurisdiction can be supported by facts in the complaint even when the complaint does not specifically identify the statute conferring jurisdiction.

United States v. Southern California Edison Co. · filed 2004-01-09

Failure to plead a specific federal law statute, however, is not “fatal.” ... “Failure to allege specifically the statute conferring jurisdiction is not always fatal to an action if the facts showing jurisdiction appear in the complaint.”

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint clearly presents a federal question, even if it does not expressly cite the section.

Nationwide Mutual v. Liberatore · filed 2005-05-11

Nationwide’s complaint was adequate to indicate the exis- tence of federal subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; thus, the district court had federal subject mat- ter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the face of the complaint makes a federal question clear, even if the complaint fails to cite the section expressly.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. William John Liberatore United States of America Dollar Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. · filed 2005-05-12

In this case, we agree with the district court that the existence of federal question jurisdiction was readily discernable from the face of the complaint, and therefore amendment was not necessary to cure Nationwide's technical pleading defect.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plead a colorable claim arising under federal law; a bare assertion that civil and constitutional rights were violated is insufficient.

Barber v. United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District · filed 2006-01-19

Barber has not alleged any facts nor provided any legal analysis suggesting that any federal rights are actually implicated by his claim. Therefore, Barber did not sufficiently plead a color-able claim of federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege sufficient facts to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Rasidescu v. University of Minnesota · filed 2006-07-31

... we conclude that dismissal was proper, because Rasidescu alleged insufficient facts to establish diversity or federal-question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

A complaint does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 by citing the section and alleging federal-law violations without identifying a federal cause of action or another basis for federal jurisdiction.

Tucker v. Toyota · filed 2008-07-16

Although the Complaint cites 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a basis for jurisdiction, it fails to identify any federal cause of action in this case.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts sufficient to support federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Beauregard v. Hillock · filed 2008-11-28

The district court properly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction because the proposed second amended complaint did not allege facts sufficient to support federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plead facts supporting a federal question to establish district court jurisdiction.

Henderson v. McNabb · filed 2010-05-05

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges facts implicating federal statutes, even if it does not cite the jurisdictional statute.

J & J Sports Production, Inc. v. Humphries Enterprises, LLC · filed 2010-06-04

While plaintiff fails to cite the relevant jurisdictional statutes in its complaint, it is clear from the face of the complaint that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. In fact, as defendant conceded (see Def.’s Mot. at 2 n. 1), plaintiffs allegations trigger 28 U.S.C. § 1331 “federal question” jurisdiction because 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605 are implicated.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint offers only conclusory discrimination allegations and a passing reference to a federal civil rights statute.

Amiri v. GELMAN MANAGEMENT CO. · filed 2010-08-19

Plaintiffs bare assertions of discrimination are not sufficient to state a civil rights claim of any kind, and a single passing reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 cannot establish this Court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint states no facts supporting its asserted federal claim.

Muhammad v. United States of America · filed 2011-09-15

The complaint contains no facts to bring it within the Court's federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts presenting a federal question; conclusory assertions that civil or constitutional rights were violated do not suffice.

Hill v. W.H.H. Trice & Company · filed 2014-04-16

A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. ... Plaintiff concludes that "the defendants violated [his] civil, constitutional and 6"‘ amendment rights," but he has not l alleged any facts presenting a federal question.

A complaint identifying no federal statutory or constitutional basis fails to state grounds for federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Miller v. Arizona Department of Corrections · filed 2014-07-18

Missing from the complaint, however, is any statement of the Court’s jurisdiction. Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, yet plaintiff fails to identify the statutory basis or the constitutional provision on which he relies.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plead facts presenting a federal question.

Johnson v. Rollins · filed 2014-09-19

Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to plead facts establishing a federal question as a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

Fletcher v. Hud · filed 2014-11-06

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). ... The complaint does not allege facts to implicate the vaguely named defendant in any wrongdoing, nor is the basis of federal court jurisdiction clear.

Section 1331 need not be expressly pleaded when the alleged facts and asserted claims sufficiently demonstrate a federal question.

Robles v. Kerry · filed 2014-11-21

Nonetheless, the Court excuses this pleading defect because “[t]he facts alleged and the claim[s] asserted [are] sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a federal question” under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires a complaint to present a federal question and plead facts bringing the suit within the court's jurisdiction; failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal.

Thomas v. District of Columbia · filed 2014-12-17

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Section 1331 provides original jurisdiction over a Title VII complaint when an attached EEOC right-to-sue notice establishes its federal basis, even if the complaint does not expressly state a jurisdictional basis.

White v. Washington Nursing Facility · filed 2016-08-31

But “[p]leadings must be construed so as to do justice,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e), and the EEOC’s right to sue notice attached to the complaint suffices to bring the complaint within the court’s original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or federal law; a broad allegation of discrimination alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Greene v. Inglewood Housing Authority · filed 2017-06-02

Though Greene broadly asserts that he was discriminated against, he has asserted no basis for federal-question jurisdiction and the parties’ lack of diversity defeats any diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint frames a federal claim in state-law terms to avoid federal jurisdiction.

Baguidy v. Boro Transit Inc. · filed 2017-09-30

It is well established that a plaintiff may not artfully plead his complaint to avoid federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires factual allegations supporting a federal claim; general assertions of violated federal rights do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Walker v. Krebs · filed 2018-05-08

Although Mr. Walker generally asserts claims against defendants for violating his rights and committing libel and slander, the court finds no discernable basis for jurisdiction over the allegations in Mr. Walker’s amended complaint.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over pleaded constitutional claims even when the complaint does not explicitly identify its jurisdictional basis in a separate section.

Tolliver v. Noble · filed 2018-10-12

Those claims all “aris[e] under the Constitution . . . of the United States” and thus establish subject matter jurisdiction, despite Tolliver’s failure explicitly to state this in a jurisdictional section.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint pleads colorable federal claims, even if its jurisdiction section does not expressly invoke the statute.

Mitchell v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 2018-12-21

Plaintiffs did not specifically allege federal question jurisdiction under the "Jurisdiction and Venue" portion of the Third Amended Complaint. ... But "[a] plaintiff properly invokes § 1331 jurisdiction when she pleads a colorable claim 'arising under" the Federal Constitution or laws." ... This court, applying this standard, concludes that dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is not appropriate in this case.

Section 1331 requires factual allegations connecting a claimed injury to federal law; merely quoting constitutional amendments does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Parker, Sr. v. Waterstone · filed 2019-07-23

Here, plaintiff quotes the text of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments in his Amended Complaint. But, plaintiff fails to connect his sparse factual allegations with the rights that these amendments provide. ... Construing plaintiff’s Amended Complaint liberally and assuming as true the few allegations it makes, plaintiff still has not satisfied his burden to establish federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a violation of the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

GILBERT v. DIPLOMAT PROPERTY MGR LLC · filed 2019-09-11

Therefore, because Plaintiff did not allege a violation of the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the United States, Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that this Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts supporting a federal claim to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(PS) Iorg v. United States · filed 2019-09-18

Because plaintiff’s complaint discusses events during her involvement with the state court system and names the United States as the only defendant2 without stating any relevant facts that involve the United States, there is no apparent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a basis for federal-question jurisdiction; mentioning federal statutes without facts showing how they were violated is insufficient.

Brian v. Mnuchin · filed 2019-10-08

First, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that assert a basis for the Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff’s complaint and subsequent filings mention various federal statutes, including tax laws, and Plaintiff has attached to his complaint a notice of a penalty charge from the IRS, but the complaint is devoid of any factual assertions from which the Court might ascertain how the cited laws may have been violated or why the cited penalty charge may have been unlawful.

Section 1331 requires the face of the complaint to clearly implicate a particular federal law or constitutional provision for federal-question jurisdiction.

(PS)Alfaro Brittany v. Roanasios · filed 2019-10-18

For federal question jurisdiction, it must be clear from the face of the complaint that a particular provision of the U.S. Constitution or a particular federal law is implicated. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction to plead a violation of the Constitution or federal law by the defendant.

EDWARDS v. THE HILLMAN GROUP, COMPANY · filed 2019-12-09

In order to invoke federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against The Hillman Group, Plaintiff must plead a violation of the U.S. Constitution or the laws of the United States against it.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a claim arising under federal law; merely invoking federal jurisdiction does not establish it.

McKay v. Spectrum Cable · filed 2020-01-24

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Thus, this Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over her claim.

Section 1331 requires a pleaded federal claim; general assertions of federal law or constitutional violations without identifying a federal right do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

HUSSEIN v. ELAMIR · filed 2020-01-28

The complaint states generally that there have been violations of federal law, federal civil rights law, or the Constitution, without further specifics. As noted above, however, mere legal conclusions do not suffice as allegations, This complaint does not specify any federal claim. No federal statute is cited. No right guaranteed by the Constitution is identified.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify the federal law supporting federal-question jurisdiction; naming the EEOC alone does not establish that basis.

Kelley v. Kahootz Bar/Grill · filed 2020-01-29

The EEOC is not a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires more than bare references to a federal statute in a complaint to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Cotto v. NYU Langone Hospitals · filed 2020-02-21

These bare references to a federal statute are insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plead a claim arising under federal law; merely referring to federal laws does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Stockstill v. Fresno Department of Social Services · filed 2020-03-17

Stockstill’s references in the complaint to several federal laws do not, by themselves, sufficiently plead federal question subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify a specific claim under the Constitution, federal law, or treaties to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

White v. Genentech-Roche Pharmaceuticals · filed 2020-03-26

Because plaintiff is self-represented, the Court will permit her to file an amended complaint to attempt to cure her pleading deficiencies, which includes the name of the now-unidentified drug, the factual allegations against defendant, and what specific claims she asserts under the United States Constitution, federal law, or federal treaties to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction under the artful pleading doctrine when a complaint asserts state-law claims and the defendant fails to show that those claims actually arise under federal law.

Kohn v. Glenmede Trust Company · filed 2020-05-01

For the following reasons, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that Plaintiffs have artfully pled their claims to avoid federal jurisdiction. It is clear from a review of the Complaint that Plaintiffs are asserting state claims under state law for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, and negligence.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint merely recites causes of action without facts supporting a federal claim.

(PS) Tobey v. Schmitt · filed 2020-05-08

Thus, plaintiffs’ recital of causes of action—which are mostly state claims—without any factual underpinning amounts to a complaint that does not confer federal question jurisdiction to this court.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction to plead a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory provision.

Marshall v. Farmer · filed 2020-05-27

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff must plead that the defendant has violated some constitutional or statutory provision.

Section 1331 does not require a plaintiff in a federal employee health benefits case to expressly identify federal-question jurisdiction in the complaint.

Hallman v. Office of Personnel Management · filed 2020-06-05

The court is unaware of any specific requirement that a plaintiff in a case such as this must identify it as arising under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act or that it is premised on federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction to plead a violation of the Constitution or federal law.

FINNEMEN v. GRIECO · filed 2020-06-12

On the form complaint provided by the Court for pro se plaintiffs, Plaintiff has checked the box for federal question jurisdiction, but in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff must plead a violation of the U.S. Constitution or the laws of the United States.

Federal-question jurisdiction cannot support removal when the federal claim first appears in an amendment filed after removal.

Phung v. FCA US, LLC · filed 2020-06-24

A post-removal amendment that adds a federal claim does not cure a lack subject matter jurisdiction at the time of removal.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is not established by a vague reference to the Bill of Rights that supplies no discernible federal legal theory.

White v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals · filed 2020-07-13

Even construed liberally in favor of the self-represented plaintiff, her vague reference to the Bill of Rights is insufficient to construct a proper legal theory or to support the assertion that federal question jurisdiction exists in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires allegations that connect an asserted federal source to the claim or state a claim under federal law to plead federal-question jurisdiction.

Bey v. Campanelli · filed 2020-08-03

The complaint also fails to raise a federal question. In the complaint’s jurisdiction section, plaintiff cites the United States Constitution, the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, the Articles of Confederation, and the Declaration of Independence. But no allegation in the complaint sheds light on how those documents create jurisdiction here. Likewise, the complaint does not state a claim under any of the other statutes cited in the complaint’s jurisdictional section—including those creating causes of action for genocide or the use of fraudulent identification documents. Accordingly, plaintiff has not pleaded federal question jurisdiction either.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint does not allege a federal question.

SALTER v. PARKVIEW HOSPITAL · filed 2020-09-14

Mr. Salter's complaint does not allege either federal-question or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law breach-of-contract claim supported only by conclusory references to constitutional violations.

Walker v. ELF Contractors/Elston Forte · filed 2020-09-30

As a general matter, federal question jurisdiction exists if the case arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”... She does not plead any facts whatsoever to support her conclusory assertions of constitutional violations. Ms. Walker plainly wants redress for a breach of contract, which is a state-law claim that (absent diversity jurisdiction) belongs in state court.

Section 1331 requires facts supporting a federal question; listing federal statutes, rules, and constitutional amendments alone does not establish jurisdiction.

Hamilton v. United States of America · filed 2020-10-07

In addition, Plaintiff fails to establish federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff cites to multiple federal statutes and attempts to assert constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and/or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971). As the Magistrate Judge correctly identified, Plaintiff’s pleadings fail to establish grounds for federal question jurisdiction as Plaintiff lists federal statutes, federal rules, and constitutional amendments without supporting facts.

Section 1331 does not support federal-question jurisdiction when an alleged federal copyright claim is too vague to establish a basis for jurisdiction.

RANSOM v. WILLIAMS · filed 2020-10-13

To the extent that Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Robert Williams “stole” two songs from him, and such a contention could suggest a violation of federal copyright law, the Court finds that this allegation is too vague upon which to base this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction through constitutional claims to allege how the defendants’ actions infringed the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Brooks v. Henry · filed 2020-11-09

And while Plaintiff broadly references the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Plaintiff fails to allege how Defendants’ actions impinged on his constitutional rights such that this Court would have federal question jurisdiction.

A complaint fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 when it does not identify a specific federal statute or constitutional provision giving rise to the claim.

Epperson v. Cederborg · filed 2020-11-10

As for federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff fails to identify a specific federal statute or constitutional provision giving rise to his claims.

Section 1331 requires enough information about the asserted claims for a court to determine whether federal question jurisdiction exists.

King v. Jenkins · filed 2020-11-23

Within fourteen days of the filing date of this order, Ms. King must (1) provide sufficient information to establish that the court has federal question jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or (2) provide some other basis for the court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 requires a complaint invoking federal-question jurisdiction to identify a cognizable federal statute or constitutional provision giving rise to the claim.

Epperson v. Cederborg · filed 2021-01-15

With regard to federal question jurisdiction, as discussed above, Plaintiff fails to identify a cognizable federal statute or constitutional provision giving rise to his claim(s) in the amended complaint.

Section 1331 does not establish federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint offers only conclusory statements and identifies no specific claim or cause of action.

Hight v. State Farm of Alabama · filed 2021-03-10

The allegations in the complaint also do not clearly support jurisdiction under either “a specific statutory grant” or “federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331” as Hight’s complaint consists of only three brief ... conclusory statements without stating any specific claims or causes of action.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal question jurisdiction to identify the federal law, constitutional provision, or treaty under which the claim arises.

Du Ma's v. Tri Met · filed 2021-04-29

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a case must arise under the United States Constitution, federal law, or treaties. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To establish that the Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, Plaintiff must identify which federal law, constitutional provision, or treaty his claims arise under. Id. His failure to identify the legal basis for his claims renders his Complaint legally insufficient and fails to establish the Court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plead a federal question arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Nails v. Chatham County Tax Commission · filed 2021-05-21

Federal question jurisdiction exists if a civil action arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff has pointed to no federal statute or Constitutional provision that creates a cause of action in this case. ... Plaintiff, therefore, has not adequately pleaded federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plead a case arising under federal law; alleging that a defendant is a federal agency or receives federal funds is insufficient.

Smith v. Neiman · filed 2021-05-26

Allegations that one of the Defendants is a federal agency or that one of the Defendants is federally funded are insufficient to appropriately assert such jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction exists only if the complaint properly pleads a case arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 requires facts demonstrating a federal law claim; merely invoking federal jurisdiction is insufficient.

McKreith v. Sutton · filed 2021-06-24

The mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, is insufficient to establish the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

A complaint that identifies no federal law or statute at issue fails to invoke federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Munoz v. Peterson Recovery Group · filed 2021-07-01

The Complaint neither references any federal law nor federal statutes at issue. ... Thus, the Complaint fails to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires enough factual allegations for a court to determine whether a complaint presents a valid basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Fenelon v. Housing & Urban Development · filed 2021-07-08

The Complaint asserts that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 because their claims arise under the Fair Housing Act violations ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et. seq; Conspiracy to violate Civil Rights, and Antitrust Law violations. However, Plaintiffs do not allege any facts regarding how these statutes were violated. ... Even construing the Complaint and the Exhibits liberally, the Court is unable to determine the factual allegations of the Complaint and/or whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have until August 8, 2021, to amend their Complaint stating a valid basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a pleaded claim arising under federal law; conclusory references to federal questions or constitutional provisions do not establish jurisdiction.

Banks v. Doe · filed 2021-10-08

Second, Plaintiffs make conclusory statements that their case presents federal questions under Section 1331, but they do not explain what those federal questions are. ... This empty verbiage is not enough to establish that Plaintiffs are bringing claims under federal law.