28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plead a basis for federal-question jurisdiction; a complaint identifying no law or constitutional provision allegedly violated fails to do so.

Duymayan v. American Express Co. · filed 2025-03-05

Here, whether the Court looks to diversity of citizenship or federal question, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to plead sufficient facts to establish a basis for jurisdiction. Specifically, Plaintiff identifies no statute, code, common law, or constitutional provision allegedly violated; and Plaintiff again fails to plead a plausible factual basis for his damages.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based only on vague references to federal law or subjects arising under it.

Brown v. Consumers Credit Union · filed 2025-03-06

Here, the Magistrate Judge determined that (1) Plaintiff’s “vague statements or references to federal law or subjects arising under federal law are insufficient to give rise to federal question jurisdiction” under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) Plaintiff has not supplied allegations in support of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (id. at PageID.515–517). ... Plaintiff identifies no factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that federal-question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a claim arises under federal law; merely invoking federal question jurisdiction is insufficient.

Buxbaum v. TD Bank · filed 2025-03-10

Mere invocation of federal question jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint invokes federal law without pleading facts supporting a federal claim.

Smalls v. Fuchs · filed 2025-03-13

Merely invoking federal jurisdiction, without pleading any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Plaintiff thus has not asserted any basis for invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify a federal right or cause of action to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Cripps v. Schutt · filed 2025-03-20

However, while the Plaintiffs allege that the conditions in their housing unit are poor and that illegal activity is occurring, they do not indicate (1) which of their civil or constitutional rights has been violated or (2) their cause of action to bring suit in U.S. District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 pursuant to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a federal claim; conclusory allegations of a constitutional violation do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Ali v. American University of Antigua, Inc. · filed 2025-03-24

His allegations with respect to any such claims are, however, conclusory; he has not pleaded any facts that show that the court has federal question jurisdiction of his claims. Plaintiff’s allegations regarding AUA and MEA appear to arise from alleged violations of state law, not federal law. Thus, inasmuch as Plaintiff invokes the court’s federal question jurisdiction, the Court dismisses his claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the removal papers and underlying state-court filings allege no federal question.

Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation · filed 2025-03-26

However, there are no allegations in the Notice of Removal, the Application, or the attached Virginia Judgment concerning a federal question or plausibly showing the federal officer removal requirements are met. Thus, Defendant has not demonstrated that federal question or federal officer removal, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, are a proper basis for removal.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to plead a cognizable federal claim.

MADAGONI v. MADAGONI LLC · filed 2025-04-01

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff pleads no basis for the Court to assert jurisdiction based on a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plead sufficient facts to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

Lett v. Lowe (MAG+) · filed 2025-04-04

Lett’s complaint does not plead sufficient facts to invoke ... federal question jurisdiction, and diversity jurisdiction is also lacking.

Section 1331 requires facts that plausibly plead a claim under federal law; invoking § 1983 alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Allen v. Wells Fargo · filed 2025-04-07

Although Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and purports to sue the individuals in their official and personal capacities, id. at 2-3, the facts alleged do not plausibly plead a claim under “the Constitution [or] laws . . .of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or support any other basis of federal court jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction to identify the specific federal law under which the claim arises.

RISIS v. BIASE · filed 2025-04-30

To put a fine point on it, although Risis cites the federal statute that authorizes federal courts to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising from federal law in the quoted section of the Complaint, plaintiffs must identify the specific federal law(s) under which their claims arise.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to allege a cause of action arising under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Myles v. Amazon.com LLC · filed 2025-05-06

Similarly, Myles has not adequately pleaded federal question jurisdiction because he has not alleged a cause of action that arises under federal law.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a federal-law claim; merely invoking federal-question jurisdiction is insufficient.

Dunbar v. Johnson · filed 2025-06-09

Here, Plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, but nothing in the complaint suggests a viable claim under federal law.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; a complaint alleging no jurisdictional basis must be dismissed.

Chrisp v. State of Nebraska · filed 2025-06-13

A case presenting a federal question arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (as opposed to the laws of the individual states). ... As no basis for jurisdiction has been alleged, Plaintiff's case must be dismissed.

Section 1331 does not establish federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint cites it; the complaint must show that the cause arises under federal law.

Brown v. Brown · filed 2025-07-01

The Complaint only cites one federal statute at all: 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. ECF No. 3 at 1. But that is only the federal question jurisdictional statute. It does not itself demonstrate that the cause arises under federal law.

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

Emrit v. Radio One · filed 2025-07-24

The court has reviewed the Complaint and finds that it does not allege facts sufficient to invoke either federal question or diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction must be apparent from the face of the complaint; a civil cover sheet cannot supply the basis for it.

Dhillon v. Edwards · filed 2025-07-30

The cover sheet cannot “supplement” the complaint to provide a basis for subject matter jurisdiction; it must be apparent from the face of the complaint that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires factual allegations supporting a federal-law claim to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Does · filed 2025-08-01

Moreover, there are no factual allegations in the amended complaint that support a violation of federal law to give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts demonstrating a federal law claim; invoking federal statutes alone does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Gadson v. Riverbay Corporation · filed 2025-08-04

Despite invoking federal statutes including the FHA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and the APA, Plaintiff alleges no facts demonstrating a federal law claim. Thus, inasmuch as Plaintiff invokes the court’s federal question jurisdiction, the Court dismisses his claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts supporting a federal claim; merely invoking the Constitution does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Randolph v. Goodman · filed 2025-08-20

Mere invocation of the federal Constitution, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question; allegations with no federal cause of action or other discernible federal basis do not establish jurisdiction.

Wayne v. McPhee · filed 2025-08-21

He has failed to state a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff does not invoke any authority that provides a federal cause of action, nor can the court independently discern any basis for federal question jurisdiction from the facts given in the Complaint.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction to allege facts showing why the federal law relied on applies to the defendant.

Stoner v. ConstruPlan LLC · filed 2025-08-21

Plaintiff appears to reference environmental compliance under Federal Law as a basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331. Plaintiff, however, fails to allege why federal environmental laws would apply to the Defendant in this case, which appears to be a private contractor. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to establish federal question jurisdiction, and does not even attempt to establish diversity citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 requires allegations sufficient to establish a federal question; a reference to the Constitution alone does not suffice.

State of Illinois v. Grubbs · filed 2025-08-25

Here, to the extent Grubbs references the U.S. Constitution and thus seeks to invoke federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, his allegations are strikingly lacking.

Section 1331 requires the complaint’s allegations to identify a basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Brar v. Apple Inc. · filed 2025-09-02

The complaint’s allegations do not identify a basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint fails to allege a cause of action arising under federal law.

Straw v. Facebook · filed 2025-09-08

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege any causes of action which might invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint offers only conclusory allegations that fail to state a plausible federal claim.

Chan v. Bacdayan · filed 2025-09-12

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a plausible claim13 or give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires factual allegations supporting a federal claim; listing federal statutes alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Lucero · filed 2025-11-04

However, Plaintiff fails to make accompanying factual allegations under any federal statute that would lead this Court to assert its jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question, through a federal cause of action or facts showing another basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Wayne v. African Male · filed 2025-11-13

First, he has failed to state a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff does not invoke any authority that provides a federal cause of action, nor can the court independently discern any basis for federal question jurisdiction from the facts given in the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a basis for federal question jurisdiction; checking the federal question box without supporting allegations is insufficient.

Singe · filed 2025-11-24

Plaintiff has checked the box for “Federal question” in the section entitled “Basis for Jurisdiction.” ... Plaintiff fails to allege a basis for federal jurisdiction.

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

Reynolds · filed 2025-11-25

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts giving rise to a claim under the Constitution or federal law; the complaint need not literally ask a federal question.

Brown · filed 2025-12-01

But Brown does not need to ask a federal question for this Court to have federal-question jurisdiction. He simply needs to allege facts that give rise to a claim under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction to identify a federal statute or constitutional right allegedly violated.

PITTS · filed 2025-12-05

Plaintiff states this “matter involves federal questions, including the use and dishonor of a U.S. Postal Service Money Order, trust property interference, and constitutional rights,”24 but she fails to identify any federal statute or constitutional right Defendant has allegedly violated.

Section 1331 requires factual allegations supporting a federal claim; merely listing federal laws does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

RISIS · filed 2025-12-10

Further, although the Amended Complaint lists specific federal statutes5 as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, merely listing those laws does not automatically establish federal question jurisdiction, as Risis has not plead the requisite factual elements in either the Amended Complaint or his Opposition.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to present a federal claim; a conclusory assertion that “federal government law” was violated is insufficient.

Hosseinipour · filed 2026-01-02

Plaintiff’s unclear and conclusory assertion in his complaint that Defendants have violated “federal government law” is insufficient to demonstrate that he alleges a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question; allegations that identify no federal cause of action or other basis for federal question jurisdiction do not suffice.

Wayne v. Wayne · filed 2026-01-02

First, he has failed to state a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff does not invoke any authority that provides a federal cause of action, nor can the court independently discern any basis for federal question jurisdiction from the facts given in the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify a federal statute or constitutional provision under which a federal question arises; a bare assertion that jurisdiction rests on federal law is insufficient.

Alexander · filed 2026-01-27

Although plaintiff alleges that “[t]he basis for this court’s jurisdiction is federal law” (Dkt. # 1, at 1), plaintiff fails to meet the pleading requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 given that he does not invoke a federal statute or constitutional provision under which a federal question arises.

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

Alexander · filed 2026-02-04

To establish federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff must plead that defendants have violated some specific federal constitutional or statutory provision.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction at the pleading stage when a complaint sufficiently alleges a constitutional claim under § 1983.

Sita · filed 2026-02-06

At the pleading stage, Plaintiff has adequately alleged federal question jurisdiction because, interpreting the AC to raise the strongest arguments it suggests, Plaintiff has sufficiently pled constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to advance past the screening stage.

A plaintiff alleging federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 must identify the causes of action asserted to arise under federal law.

Wright v. Allstate Vehicle · filed 2026-02-10

The Court has federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. If Plaintiffs allege the Court has federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiffs shall state this is a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction and list the cause(s) of action that Plaintiffs assert arise under federal law.

Section 1331 requires allegations sufficient to establish federal-question jurisdiction; dissatisfaction with a lawyer’s representation alone does not establish it.

MACELLARI · filed 2026-02-11

Even under the liberal reading that this Court gives to Macellari’s Complaint, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), the Court is unable to determine if it has subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit–diversity of citizenship or federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Without more factual allegations, Macellari’s alleged dissatisfaction with Sherwood’s legal representation is insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege federal grounds in substance; merely naming constitutional rights does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Fortier · filed 2026-02-24

Rather, the Complaint invokes constitutional rights in name only, is largely nonsensical, and is primarily devoted to disparaging Defendant. ... Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Plaintiff failed to plead adequate facts to establish federal question jurisdiction over her claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no claim under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Joseph Bova, Jr. v. Sajone · filed 2026-03-05

Nowhere in his complaint did Bova allege that his claims were being brought under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; thus, the District Court correctly concluded that it did not have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plead facts showing a federal question; listing federal statutes or constitutional provisions alone is insufficient.

Johnson-Hinds · filed 2026-03-11

The presence of a federal question cannot be established by simply listing federal statutes or constitutional provisions.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires a complaint to identify a federal statutory or constitutional basis and allege sufficient facts showing that the case arises under federal law.

Castellanos · filed 2026-03-23

The original Complaint does not identify, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint that identifies, the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., or any other federal statutory or constitutional provision under which her claims arise; nor do they allege sufficient facts showing that this case arises under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts showing that a claim arises under federal law; listing federal statutes or constitutional provisions is insufficient.

Goudy-Bartolotta · filed 2026-04-08

Although plaintiff invokes a federal question as the basis of this Court’s jurisdiction, id., she fails to meet the minimum pleading standard of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The presence of a federal question cannot be established by simply listing federal statutes or constitutional provisions.

Section 1331 requires allegations showing that a claim arises under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Cooks · filed 2026-04-29

He has not alleged sufficient facts showing either that his claims arise under federal law, or that the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a claim arising under federal law; a bare assertion of a due process violation without supporting facts does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Ventura · filed 2026-05-06

As neither of these sentences fulfills the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, for a claim arising under federal law, the Court is left without authority to exercise federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint, with facts showing that the claim arises under federal law.

Rosenthal · filed 2026-05-14

For a case to arise under federal question jurisdiction, the federal question must be apparent on the face of the well-pleaded complaint. ... Thus, the Complaint wholly fails to identify any federal statute or cause of action that could establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal statute or constitutional provision that was violated.

Andrews v. Hotel Reed Nursing Home · filed 2001-04-11

In the amended complaint (Doc. 4), Plaintiff identifies no federal statute or constitutional provision that has been violated. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs action.

Section 1331 can support jurisdiction over a federal constitutional claim even when the complaint does not specifically cite it.

Hander v. San Jacinto Junior College, Etc. · filed 1975-10-29

Moreover, as we have recently held, the mere fact that § 1331 jurisdiction is not specifically alleged is not determinative.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts showing that the case arises under federal law; merely asserting a federal question is insufficient.

Conservation Council of Western Australia, Inc. v. Aluminum Co. of America · filed 1981-07-09

The Complaint in this case does not explain what the supposed “federal question” is. No federal statute is alleged, no federal common law right is pleaded, and the complaint is totally devoid of any allegations of fact tending to show the existence of a federal question. Accordingly, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to allege sufficient facts establishing federal-question jurisdiction; conclusory allegations of jurisdiction are insufficient.

Harris v. PBC NBADL, LLC · filed 2011-10-31

In addition, despite his pro se status, Harris was required to allege sufficient facts in his complaint to show that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over his claims, and mere conclusory allegations of jurisdiction are insufficient. ... As a result, Harris was required to allege sufficient facts in his complaint to establish either federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a plausible federal claim even when the complaint does not expressly identify its federal source.

Bockari v. California Victim Compensation & Government Claims Board · filed 2016-11-28

For these reasons, we conclude that the district court erred in deciding that no subject matter jurisdiction exists over this action.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts sufficient to establish federal-question jurisdiction; a § 1983 claim without facts showing state action did not suffice.

Yomon v. Keir · filed 2020-07-15

Therefore, the complaint as filed is not sufficient to establish subject-matter jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when a complaint offers no factual basis for a plausible federal claim.

Robbins v. Evers · filed 2020-07-20

In sum, after reviewing the Complaint facts as true and most favorably to Robbins, the Court cannot find any factual basis to make plausible any federal cause of action. This action instead arises solely as a family law matter, and the Court can discern no way that Robbins may cure the jurisdictional and factual insufficiencies by amending the pleadings. Thus the action must be dismissed.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; vague references to federal rights do not establish federal-question jurisdiction when the claims concern state-law matters.

Myers v. Hobson · filed 2021-07-27

For federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiffs must assert a cause of action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The Court, therefore, lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims, and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction when a complaint merely references a constitutional right or makes conclusory allegations of discrimination.

Johnson v. New York State · filed 2022-02-17

The Complaint asserts that defendants “denied [him] Due Process Rights[.]” Doc. #1 at 3. However, this mere passing reference to a Constitutional right is insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction for claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and the court held that failing to plead it required dismissal.

Moton v. Park Christian School · filed 2022-03-29

The Motons have not established jurisdiction because they have failed to plead federal question jurisdiction under § 1331. Section 1331 is mentioned nowhere in their Complaint.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts a federal claim at the time of removal, even if a later amendment removes that claim.

LAWLESS v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2022-06-03

At the time of removal in this case, the Court had subject matter jurisdiction through 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as the original complaint asserted a claim under Section 1983.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint expressly alleges a constitutional violation, even if it does not expressly invoke § 1983.

Rivera v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2022-11-15

This specific invocation of the United States Constitution sufficiently sustains federal question jurisdiction allowing this court to adjudicate Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; allegations of a private contract dispute do not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Turner v. Rimon Law · filed 2023-10-12

As such, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to sufficiently allege federal question jurisdiction pursuant to section 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; citing a federal statute without facts supporting a federal claim does not establish that jurisdiction.

Spearfish Evans-Tonn Ditch Company v. Horizon Investments, LLC · filed 2024-02-06

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have jurisdiction over cases arising out of federal law, including federal statutes and the United States Constitution. Merely citing to a federal statute, however, is not enough to confer federal jurisdiction; the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show a plausible right to jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts establishing federal question jurisdiction; allegations that fail to do so cannot support jurisdiction.

Terry L. and Michelle L. Hollinger Estate v. SunTrust Bank · filed 2024-10-21

Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must remand the case because Plaintiffs fail to plead facts sufficient to determine the diversity of every defendant, fail to plead facts establishing federal question jurisdiction, and, most conclusively of all, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars this Court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331’s jurisdictional threshold is met when a liberally construed complaint invokes Section 1983 and federal constitutional rights, even if it fails to state a claim.

Robinson v. City of Seattle · filed 2024-10-21

First, the Court previously found that Robinson failed to adequately plead federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Dkt. No. 11 at 3. As to this defect, the Court now finds—construing Robinson’s complaint liberally—that Robinson has met the minimal threshold necessary to satisfy jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law or the Constitution; checking a federal-question box without identifying either does not establish jurisdiction.

Maney v. Kreulen · filed 2024-11-22

A plaintiff properly invokes federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331 when he pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... Here, Plaintiff checked the box for “Federal Question” jurisdiction. ... In elaborating, she provides no statutes or provisions of the United States Constitution that are at issue in this case, nor can the Court discern any.

Section 1331 requires the well-pleaded complaint to allege facts supporting a federal question for subject-matter jurisdiction.

Greene v. Alara Homeowners Association Incorporated · filed 2025-07-16

There are not enough facts on the face of the complaint to assert a federal question. Am. Well Works, 241 U.S. at 260. Without more, the Court does not have jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint merely lists federal statutes but asserts only state-law claims.

Stroud v. Burton · filed 2025-07-18

Because Plaintiff only asserts claims under state law (breach of contract, property claims), there is no federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state tort claim merely because it involves speech on matters of public concern.

Anne Arundel County, Maryland v. BP P.L.C. · filed 2022-09-29

To begin, it would dramatically expand Grable to conclude that any state tort claim involving speech on matters of public concern could invoke federal court jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer Grable jurisdiction over state tort claims merely because they involve speech on matters of public concern.

City of Annapolis, Maryland v. BP P.L.C. · filed 2022-09-29

To begin, it would dramatically expand Grable to conclude that any state tort claim involving speech on matters of public concern could invoke federal court jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when resolving the claim does not necessarily require interpreting or applying federal law.

Organic Consumers Association v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc. · filed 2018-06-29

Therefore, federal food labeling requirements do not necessarily raise a federal issue because those requirements will not need to be interpreted or applied in this case. Accordingly, because no federal issue is necessarily raised by the OCA’s claim, the Court concludes that it does not have federal question jurisdiction in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over claims that are not based on a federal statute when they implicate significant federal issues.

State of Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community · filed 2012-08-15

As to these claims, the plaintiffs assert that we have federal- question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We agree. Although none of these claims are based on a federal statute, the claims “arise under” federal law because they “implicate significant federal issues.” Grable & Sons Metal Prods, Inc. v. Darue Eng’g, 545 U.S. 308, 312 (2005).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over charitable trust claims against the federal government when whether a federal statute authorized enforceable trustee duties presents a significant federal issue.

Valentini v. Shinseki · filed 2012-03-16

Because the charitable trust claims implicate a significant federal issue — the circumstances in which the federal government assumes enforceable duties as trustee of a charitable trust — jurisdiction is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a federal issue is only one of several theories supporting a single claim.

Broder v. Cablevision Systems Corp. · filed 2005-08-11

Where a federal issue is present as only one of multiple theories that could support a particular claim, however, this is insufficient to create federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a federal issue appears only as an alternative theory of relief.

Howery v. Allstate Ins Company · filed 2001-02-28

As an alternate theory supporting a single claim, the federal question is not a necessary element of the state claim, and thus does not create federal question jurisdiction.

A state-law claim alleging violation of a federal statute does not present a substantial federal question under Section 1331 when Congress provided no private cause of action for violating that statute.

Emerado Public School District 127 v. Sanford · filed 1990-10-30

Federal courts may hear an action grounded in state law if the action poses a “substantial” question of federal law. ... However, if Congress has not provided a private cause of action for violation of a federal statute, a claimed violation of the statute is not sufficiently “substantial” to confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a contract-related action when deciding it requires interpretation of federal law or regulations.

Teitelbaum v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development · filed 1996-03-29

Even where a case is contractual in nature, the presence of issues requiring the interpretation of federal law and regulation necessarily give rise to a federal question. ... As a result, this Court has federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law tort claim merely because a federal regulation supplies an element of negligence.

Fuller v. BNSF Railway Co. · filed 2007-01-03

It is clear that, under Grable, Plaintiffs’ invocation of a lone federal regulation as an element of a state-law tort claim is insufficient to establish a substantial federal question for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily requires resolution of a federal question.

Rhode Island Fishermen's Alliance, Inc. v. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management · filed 2009-10-23

We conclude that the plaintiffs' well-pleaded complaint establishes that their asserted right to relief under state law requires resolution of a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law claim incorporating federal overtime rules when the case presents no substantial and actually disputed question of federal law.

Noble, et al. v. Direct Capital Corp. · filed 2010-03-24

The defendant has not demonstrated that the case presents any substantial and actually disputed question of federal law. Under these circumstances, there is no reason why the case should remain in federal court.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim with an embedded federal issue only if the issue is necessary, actually disputed, substantial, and consistent with the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Marren v. Stout · filed 2013-03-18

If any one of these four prongs is not satisfied, a court should not exercise federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law challenge to state agency rulemaking when deciding an embedded federal issue would disturb the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Maine Municipal Ass'n v. Mayhew · filed 2014-12-04

The Court concludes that in this case, the balance between federal and state judicial responsibilities would be disturbed if this Court assumed jurisdiction. ... In this context, the Court concludes that a state court, not a federal court, should resolve legal disputes that run to the heart of how Maine state government is to function. Even though immigration policy is largely a federal concern, in the context of this internecine dispute between elected Maine officials, the federal court would risk meddling in a dispute that resonates with state governmental and policy concerns.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim whose damages element requires resolving substantial and disputed federal tariff provisions without disrupting the federal-state balance.

Great Lakes Gas Transmission Ltd. Partnership v. Essar Steel Minnesota, LLC · filed 2015-05-04

Because this case involves substantial and disputed federal questions, the Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1337, and has exclusive jurisdiction, pursuant to section 717u of the NGA. ... Rather, federal question jurisdiction exists here because Plaintiffs claim for damages requires the Court to interpret substantial and disputed provisions of the federal Tariff.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law claim that can be resolved without necessarily deciding a substantial federal issue.

MobilizeGreen, Inc. v. Community Foundation for the National Capital Region · filed 2015-04-29

The Community Foundation’s over-reading of the Department of Agriculture regulation and the Anti-Assignment Act is insufficient to demonstrate that the Complaint necessarily raises a substantial federal issue. The Court need not reach the remaining Gunn factors. See Gunn, 133 S. Ct. at 1064. Remand is appropriate because no federal question jurisdiction arises from MobilizeGreen’s breach of contract claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that can succeed on a theory independent of the asserted federal issue.

New York ex rel. Rasmusen v. Citigroup Inc. · filed 2016-12-02

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the federal issue fails under the first “necessarily raised” prong of the Grable-Gunn test and does not address the remaining three elements.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over federal claims, but a federal question raised only in a counterclaim does not establish that jurisdiction.

Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd. · filed 2017-03-31

Generally, federal courts have original jurisdiction to hear these types of claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (giving district courts “original jurisdiction” over “all civil actions arising under the ... laws ... of the United States”). Ours is not such a case. Instead, the federal question here emanates from Metaswitch’s counterclaims. In this context, “[allowing a counterclaim to establish ‘arising under’ jurisdiction would ... contravene the longstanding policies underlying [Supreme Court] precedents.” ... Accordingly, the Court lacks original jurisdiction over Metaswitch’s counterclaims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that can succeed under independent state-law duties even if federal law may also bear on liability.

New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Purdue Pharma L.P. · filed 2018-06-12

Thus, contrary to McKesson's claim that Plaintiff can prevail only by showing that Defendants violated the FCSA, it appears that Plaintiff could show that Defendants violated state law duties to control, report and guard against the diversion of prescription drug orders, meaning that the federal statute is not necessarily raised.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims unless a federal right or immunity is an essential element of the claims.

State of Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Company, LLC · filed 2019-07-22

And it too does not exist here, because Defendants have not located “a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States” that is “an element and an essential one, of the [State]’s cause[s] of action.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim with an embedded federal issue when exercising jurisdiction would disrupt the federal-state balance approved by Congress.

Harvest Small Business Finance, LLC v. Valbridge Property Advisors, Inc. · filed 2020-05-08

Accordingly, the court finds that exercising jurisdiction over this action would upset the federal-state balance Congress has struck.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim with an embedded federal issue that is necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial to the federal system, and resolvable in federal court without disrupting the congressionally approved federal-state balance.

Sarauer v. International Association of M · filed 2020-07-20

State law claims that are not displaced by federal law may still arise under federal law for purposes of § 1331 if they “im‐ plicate significant federal issues.” Grable, 545 U.S. at 312. A plaintiff’s complaint is said to present an “embedded” federal issue supporting federal‐question jurisdiction if it raises a fed‐ eral issue that is “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal‐state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258. Plaintiffs’ complaint in this case satisfied all four elements of this test.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims merely because the complaint references federal workplace guidance; the embedded federal issue must satisfy the Grable test.

BENJAMIN v. JBS S.A. · filed 2021-01-29

Therefore, we conclude that the fact that the Complaint references OSHA and CDC guidelines is insufficient to “necessarily raise” a federal issue as required under the first prong of Grable.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises no stated, disputed, and substantial federal issue.

de PR v. Flores · filed 2021-03-01

Because Indulac's petition sounds only in Puerto law and not in federal law, and because its Puerto Rico claims cannot be said to raise any stated, disputed, and substantial federal issues, this action does not fall within federal ingredient jurisdiction either.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the asserted federal issue arises only as a potential defense and is not necessarily raised by the claim.

Estate of Evaristo Acosta v. WDW Joint Venture · filed 2021-07-21

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs claims do not present an embedded question under Grable. The federal issue raised relates to Defendant’s potential defense, not the claims alleged by Plaintiff. As such, the federal issue is not necessarily raised.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a territorial claim merely because compliance with federal law bears on one of its elements.

Ramirez v. City Wings, Inc. · filed 2021-08-20

However, even if compliance with federal law speaks to an element of a state or territorial claim, this does not create federal jurisdiction based on a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim whose outcome does not depend on federal law.

Nash v. Little Rock Housing Authority · filed 2021-09-20

Here, on the other hand, no federal law determines the outcome of Mr. Nash’s defamation claim.

Under § 1331, an embedded federal question must be important to the federal system, not merely to the parties, to satisfy the substantiality requirement.

AMTAX Holdings 227, LLC v. Tenants' Development II Corp. · filed 2021-10-13

Substantiality demands that an embedded federal question be "important to the federal system," not just to the parties.

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

H-E-B, L.P. v. Maverick International Ltd. · filed 2021-11-23

The mere presence of a federal issue is insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction. Any federal issue in this case is not substantial.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when an independent state common-law duty means the claim does not necessarily raise a federal issue.

EASTERN MAINE MEDICAL CENTER v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC · filed 2022-01-19

Thus, there is no federal question necessarily raised by the Complaint, and federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim based on an embedded federal question only when resolving the federal issue is necessary to the claim.

Ramirez v. Windsor Care Center National City, Inc. · filed 2022-02-09

Because an interpretation of the PREP Act is not an essential element of any of Plaintiff’s state law claims, the Court finds that Grable does not apply.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not necessarily raise a substantial federal issue.

Escobar v. Mercy Medical Center · filed 2022-03-07

The Court agrees and finds that none of Plaintiff’s claims necessarily raise a substantial federal issue within the meaning of Grable.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the claim relates to issues faced nationwide.

Herring v. Californian-Magnolia Convalescent Hospital, Inc. · filed 2022-03-11

Moreover, if the mere fact that a claim relates to issues faced nationwide was sufficient to convert a state law cause of action to a federal question, then “Congress’s intended division of labor between state and federal courts” would be severely “disrupt[ed].”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the removing party fails to satisfy the Grable test for an embedded federal issue.

Cambre v. Riverlands Home Group, LLC · filed 2022-06-28

The defendants did not make a sufficient showing with respect to any of the Grable prongs, and federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction under the Grable doctrine when state-law negligence claims do not necessarily raise an issue of federal law.

Krol v. The Cottages at Garden Grove · filed 2022-08-22

The Court finds that the Grable doctrine does not support removal in this case because Plaintiffs claims do not necessarily raise issues of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise no federal question on the face of the complaint, even when an embedded federal issue is asserted.

Constantine v. Trestles LLC · filed 2022-10-06

Defendant’s second argument in favor of federal question jurisdiction, that federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if the federal issue is both disputed, substantial, and capable or resolution without disturbing the balance of federal and state power, is also foreclosed by Saldana. The Ninth Circuit, faced with causes of action comparable to those presented here, found that such claims are properly “raised under California law and do not raise questions of federal law on the face of the complaint” sufficient to confer so-called “embedded” federal jurisdiction. Saldana, 27 F.4th at 688, citing Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise no embedded federal question.

Roccaro v. Covenant Living West · filed 2023-02-22

Thus, subject matter jurisdiction is not invoked as the issues presented do not raise an embedded question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not necessarily raise a disputed and substantial federal issue.

Beall v. The City of Morgantown · filed 2023-05-04

The Court finds Defendant has failed to satisfy the Grable factors demonstrating an embedded federal question exists in Plaintiffs’ Complaint investing this Court with jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim under Grable only when a substantial federal issue necessarily arises as part of the plaintiff’s claim.

Bowman v. Pathfinder Solutions, LLC · filed 2023-06-13

Put differently, Grable only applies where the substantial federal issue necessarily arises as part of the Plaintiff’s claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they relate to federal allegations in another case; the complaint must necessarily raise a federal question.

Economou v. Boyd · filed 2023-08-31

Defendants’ assertion that the allegations in the present case and in the Federal Litigation are “inextricably intertwined” is not evident from the four corners of the Complaint and as alleged, is insufficient to create federal subject matter jurisdiction. Given that Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded complaint does not perforce raise a federal question, the Court need not analyze the two remaining factors.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law subpoena enforcement action when enforcement requires no proof of federal law.

Jennings v. Cabela's, LLC · filed 2024-01-24

The State can enforce its revised subpoena without needing to prove any question of federal law as an element of its case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff can prevail without relying on federal law.

Gonzalez v. Google, Inc. · filed 2024-07-08

Therefore, the “necessarily raised” requirement is not satisfied because Plaintiffs could prevail on their proposed negligence claim without relying on federal law.

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

Pakistani American Political Action Committee v. Kahn · filed 2024-10-03

Because the federal issues presented in this case amount to little more than molehills, rather than mountains, the Court does not have jurisdiction on any embedded federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a federal issue or defense might arise.

Tobiason v. BMO Bank NA · filed 2024-12-05

A case does not arise under federal law, within the meaning of Section 1331 and Grable, simply because federal issues or defenses might be raised in connection with state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it involves a federal issue; the issue must be substantial, and federal jurisdiction must preserve the balance between federal and state courts.

Campbell v. The City of Morgantown · filed 2025-03-27

The Court finds Defendant has failed to satisfy the Grable factors demonstrating an embedded federal question exists in Plaintiffs’ Complaint investing this Court with jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the complaint refers to a federal statute.

Consulate General of India in New York v. 834 5th Avenue Corporation · filed 2025-07-25

The AC’s passing reference to the ADA does not bring this case within the “special and small category” of cases where state law claims embedding federal questions can give rise to federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state constitutional claims when federal adjudication would disrupt the balance of state and federal judicial responsibilities.

Levitan v. Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP · filed 2025-09-30

Even if substantial federal issues are at stake in this case, so are core state interests. The plaintiff’s state-law claims, therefore, are outside of the Court’s federal question jurisdiction under Grable and Gunn.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim only when the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial federal question; a potential federal defense does not suffice.

Asociación de Laboratorios Clínicos v. Triple-S Advantage Inc. · filed 2026-05-04

Here, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the instant case because Plaintiff’s right to relief does not necessarily depend on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state securities claim when resolving the claim does not require deciding a federal issue.

Lovecchio · filed 2026-05-28

Thus, it is not necessary for a court to resolve a federal issue in order for Plaintiff to prevail on his Louisiana Securities Law claim, so federal jurisdiction is not proper under Grable/Gunn on this basis.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a substantial federal question involving the construction of NEPA.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. v. United States · filed 1978-02-28

This Court agrees that a construction of NEPA is a federal question.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim with an embedded federal issue only when the issue is necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and resolvable in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance.

Peters v. Alaska Tr., LLC · filed 2018-03-30

Applying the Grable factors here, the Court concludes that this case does not fall within the "special and small category" of cases, as explained below.

Section 1331 does not support retaining a removed case when the amended complaint contains only state-law claims and no federal cause of action.

(PC) Hill v. Kernan · filed 2020-07-14

Therefore, in the absence of a federal cause of action, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: ... This matter is REMANDED to the Sacramento County Superior Court; and ... The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

A removed complaint that alleges neither diversity nor a federal question within Section 1331 must be remanded to state court rather than dismissed on the merits.

Foren v. Barclays American/financial, Inc. · filed 1990-11-01

This case does not fall within any grant of federal jurisdiction. The absence of diversity rules out jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332, and the complaint does not allege a federal question within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. Lacking jurisdiction, the district court ought to have remanded the case to the Tennessee court from which it had been removed.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over an earlier federal statutory action does not extend to a later independent suit alleging only common-law fraud and no violation of federal law.

Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell · filed 1990-12-10

In Cresswell I, the district court had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 because the claims in that action sought relief under the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq. That circumstance is not present here. None of the claims against S & C depends on the merits of plaintiffs' Cresswell I claims or the quality of Bache's disclosures to potential investors in its Spreads. There is no question here as to whether Bache's representations constituted violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, and there is no contention that the conduct of S & C violated any federal statute. Rather, plaintiffs' claim is that S & C committed common-law fraud.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over an ERISA alter ego claim alleging that the defendant is directly liable for an ERISA violation.

Brown v. Astro Holdings, Inc. · filed 2005-08-29

This sufficiently alleges a direct violation of ERISA on the part of the corporate defendants to state a federal question and confer subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ alter ego claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a dispute between ERISA plans concerning the enforceability of a plan provision because the dispute arises under federal law.

Jones v. State Wide Aluminum, Inc. · filed 2003-02-20

This suit, about the enforceability of an escape clause, is connected to a plan, so the court has jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an ERISA plan administrator’s request to enforce a waiver of employees’ state-law injury claims when the waiver and claims are governed by state law.

Texas Health Enterprises, Inc. v. Reece · filed 1995-02-01

THE also invoked federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 and jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 2201-2202. ... As stated in Hook, these issues do not relate to federal ERISA law and are to be resolved under state law. The district court therefore did not err in refusing to exercise jurisdiction over THE's claims and in denying the relief requested by THE.

Section 1331 permits an employer’s ERISA-related claim when resolving it requires construing ERISA and applying distinctive federal policies, even though ERISA’s express jurisdictional provision does not cover employers.

Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Howard Baer, Inc. · filed 1991-01-02

Nevertheless, the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 which gives federal courts jurisdiction to hear civil matters arising under federal law. As long as a matter “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”, a federal court may entertain the claim.

Section 1331 supplies federal jurisdiction for a third-party administrator’s suit challenging state regulation as preempted by ERISA even if the administrator is not an ERISA fiduciary.

NGS American, Inc. v. Barnes · filed 1992-10-08

Even if the third-party administrator is not a “fiduciary” under ERISA, such an administrator still has standing in the present action pursuant to the general federal question jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction for an ERISA benefits claim when the plaintiff is not a plan participant or beneficiary and ERISA is therefore not implicated.

Smith v. Motherlode Plastics, Inc. Continental Life & Accident Company, Inc. · filed 1993-03-24

In civil cases, subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon federal district courts through diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The sole federal question in Smith's complaint arises from medical benefit claims under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (1986), which preempts state claims relating to an employee benefit plan, 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a); see also Scott v. Gulf Oil Corp., 754 F.2d 1499, 1501 (9th Cir.1985). ... To bring a suit in federal court under the terms of §§ 1132(a)(1)(b) and 1132(a)(2), the plaintiff must be a participant in, or beneficiary of a plan. ... We hold that ERISA was not properly implicated under the facts of the case and, therefore, the district court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over an action involving an employee welfare benefit plan covered by ERISA.

Weigle v. AIG Insurance · filed 1995-07-19

In light of these standards, the Court determines that the VGA Plan is an “employee welfare benefit plan” under ERISA terminology. The evidence in the record clearly reveals that Dow assumed some meaningful degree of responsibility for administration of the VGA Plan and possessed an intent to provide the benefits at issue to its employees. Consequently, this action was properly removed from state court and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction herein under 28 U.S.C. 1331.

Section 1331 independently provides federal-question jurisdiction over ERISA claims even when ERISA also supplies a jurisdictional grant.

Newpage Wisconsin System Inc. v. United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy Allied Industrial & Servi · filed 2011-07-12

Jurisdiction is appropriate under both §502(e) and §1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over ERISA claims brought by parties outside the categories authorized to sue under ERISA § 502, because those parties have no right arising under federal law.

Metal Lathers Local 46 Pension Fund v. River Avenue Contracting Corp. · filed 2013-07-22

Section 502 of ERISA creates a federal right only as to the parties enumerated in the statute; by that logic, parties not included within the statute cannot bring ERISA claims in federal court under § 1331, as they can assert no right arising under federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims seeking equitable enforcement of an ERISA plan despite a state-law defense to those claims.

MedCath Inc. Employee Health Care Plan v. Stratton · filed 2015-01-16

Defendants’ state law defense does hot convert Plaintiffs ERISA claims to state law claims. Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court has original jurisdiction over Counts 1 and 2 of the First Amended Complaint because they arise under ERISA.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is not displaced by a contractual choice-of-law clause; the clause’s effect on the applicable federal law is a merits question.

Botman International, B.V. v. International Produce Imports, Inc. · filed 2006-10-31

Thus, the applicability of federal law in light of a choice-of-law clause is itself a federal question to be determined on the merits.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a contract invokes federal law in its choice-of-law provision, when no federal law is necessary to resolve the claim.

Imperial Fund I, LLC v. Bim's Investments, LLC · filed 2021-02-25

Defendant points to no federal law necessary to resolve these state law claims, and therefore no federal question jurisdiction is present under section 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction over the remaining claims once the federal claims are gone.

Wills v. Microgenics Corporation · filed 2025-08-04

Having granted Woodberry’s motion for summary judgment, there are no remaining federal claims in this case. Accordingly, this court lacks subject matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction can arise when a plaintiff voluntarily adds a federal claim after removal, curing a jurisdictional defect at the time of removal.

Singh v. American Honda Finance Corp. · filed 2019-05-30

By voluntarily amending his complaint to assert a federal claim, Singh established federal subject-matter jurisdiction and cured any jurisdictional defect that existed at the time of removal.

Section 1331 permits original federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff voluntarily adds a federal cause of action after removal and the case is decided on the merits without objection.

Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co. · filed 1997-04-28

This claim constitutes a federal question and thus gives the district court original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Although subject-matter jurisdiction is generally assessed as of the time of removal, there is an exception if the plaintiff voluntarily amends his or her complaint after removal to add a federal cause of action, and the case is "tried on the merits without objection." ... In this case, the district court acquired jurisdiction, if it did not already exist, when the plaintiffs amended their federal complaint to include an implied cause of action under federal law.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is unaffected when a plaintiff abandons a federal claim after removal without amending the complaint to eliminate all federal questions.

Mello v. Page, County · filed 2023-12-08

The abandonment of her ADA claim—like her post-removal “verifications” that she did not include an ADA claim in her Petition, see, e.g., Doc. [45] at 11—has no effect on the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits a substantial, nonfrivolous constitutional challenge to discriminatory methods used by the Veterans Administration even when federal courts cannot review the claimant’s individual benefits determination.

Kibbe v. R.I. Conlee, Adjudication Officer, Va Regional Office, Detroit, Veterans Administration · filed 1991-04-11

Kibbe's complaint on its face makes a substantial, non-frivolous assertion that the V.A. violated his constitutional rights by employing racially discriminatory methods of determining which benefits claims to grant. Section 211(a) does not deprive a federal court of jurisdiction to entertain this type of constitutional challenge. The district court should therefore assume jurisdiction over Kibbe's due process and equal protection claims under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over suits to enjoin a formal regulation governing seasonal agricultural worker eligibility, even though individual denials follow a separate statutory review process.

Morales v. Clayton K. Yeutter, Secretary of Agriculture · filed 1991-12-18

The familiar and by now traditional method for obtaining such a determination is to bring an injunctive suit in federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the grant of federal-question jurisdiction. We have no reason to suppose that Congress wanted to displace that method merely because it decided to channel judicial review of denials of individual applications for adjustment of status under the SAW program through the usual routes by which aliens obtain judicial review.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over collateral constitutional challenges to SEC administrative proceedings when Congress has not made the administrative review process exclusive.

Hill v. Securities & Exchange Commission · filed 2015-06-08

Here, the Court finds that because Congress created .a statutory scheme which expressly included the district court as a permissible forum for the SEC’s claims, Congress did not intend to limit § 1331 and prevent Plaintiff from raising his collateral constitutional claims in the district court.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over APA challenges to National Labor Relations Board rulemaking; the NLRA’s review procedure for Board orders does not displace that jurisdiction.

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America · filed 2024-03-18

If the text of § 10(f) were not enough in isolation to reject the Board’s position, the Act’s overall text, structure, and purpose unambiguously de- feat any inference of an intent to displace § 1331 jurisdiction over challenges to Board rulemaking.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction only to federal district courts and does not confer jurisdiction on the United States Claims Court.

Yount v. United States · filed 1991-06-12

Plaintiff attempts to invoke the court’s jurisdiction by citing three jurisdictional statutes that apply only to federal district cotuts: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal district courts have federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (federal district courts have jurisdiction over claims arising under Little Tucker Act and Federal Tort Claims Act); and 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus power of federal district courts).

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction, but does not give that jurisdiction to the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Chandler v. States · filed 2000-06-22

However, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1994) establishes federal question jurisdiction in the district courts, not in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts general federal-question jurisdiction but does not give bankruptcy courts that jurisdiction.

In Re Tomasevic · filed 2002-06-14

Unlike the United States district court, the bankruptcy court does not have general federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction to district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims.

Proxtronics Dosimetry, LLC v. United States · filed 2016-09-30

Similarly, plaintiff’s invocation of specific statutes concerning federal question, diversity, and intellectual property––28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1), 1338(a)-(b)––to establish jurisdiction in this court is unavailing. All of the statutes relied upon by plaintiff fall within the exclusive province of the district courts.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction to district courts but does not empower the Court of Federal Claims.

Kimbrell v. United States · filed 2019-06-24

Plaintiff is also mistaken in believing that the statutes conferring federa l question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, on district courts can also empower our court. They cannot.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction to district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims.

Rodgers v. United States · filed 2021-04-30

Section 1331 only confers federal question jurisdiction on district courts.