28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law, but does not give that jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims.

Ricks v. United States · filed 2026-06-08

Similarly, his reliance on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is misplaced because that statute provides district courts with jurisdiction to hear cases arising under federal law.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over a state law complaint that repeats claims resolved in an earlier federal action to evade the federal judgment.

Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co. · filed 1991-11-15

An action relying on state law is essentially federal in nature where a plaintiff has had its rights determined by a federal court and the subsequent state action is an attempt to avoid the prior federal judgment. ... Because plaintiffs’ actions are in reality artful pleadings to avoid a prior federal court decision, this court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ removed actions.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when claims pleaded under state law actually arise under federal law or federal common law.

In Re Comcast Cellular Telecommunications Litigation · filed 1996-12-06

Accordingly, even when a plaintiff does not allege a violation of a specific provision of the Communications Act, and removal is not available under the jurisdictional section of the Act, Section 207, the plaintiffs claims may be found to arise under federal common law such that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 would provide an adequate jurisdictional basis for removal. ... Rather, the Court will recharacterize Counts III and IV of Plaintiffs’ complaint as federal claims arising under the Communications Act and the federal common law surrounding the Act. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs’ claims arise under federal law, this court has subject matter jurisdiction and the complaint was properly removed.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction under the artful pleading exception when a state-court claim collaterally attacks a prior federal judgment whose preclusive effect rests on federal law.

Rivet v. Regions Bank Of Louisiana · filed 1997-04-15

It follows, then, that removal of the plaintiffs' state court collateral attack on the bankruptcy court's final judgment is entirely appropriate in this case, even though the preclusive -- and thus essentially federal -- nature of that federal court judgment derived from the underlying bankruptcy case.

Federal-question jurisdiction permits removal under the artful-pleading exception when a state-law claim is precluded by a prior federal judgment on a question of federal law.

Rivet v. Regions Bnk of LA · filed 1997-06-02

The claim preclusion or res judicata branch of the artful pleading exception to that doctrine demonstrates beyond cavil that their state court suit, filed subsequent to the final judgments of the bankruptcy court on issues of federal law, need not be remanded.

Section 1331 reaches a state declaratory action artfully pleaded to omit a federal question where the underlying dispute involves rights under federal law.

Converse County School District No. Two v. Pratt · filed 1997-12-18

More importantly, by filing this eomplaint for declaratory relief artfully pleaded in such a way that only the narrowest part of the parties’ extant dispute over the surrogate parent issue is the subject of the complaint, the School District has effectively deprived intervenor and respondents of the federal forum available to them under the IDEA. ... Accordingly, the court finds that there is a federal question involved in this case.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a purported state-law complaint artfully conceals a substantial federal issue on which relief necessarily depends.

Harris v. Florida Elections Canvassing Commission · filed 2000-12-09

Generally, the inquiry whether federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is guided by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which states that 'federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.’ ... The Court finds, however, that the plaintiffs in this case have artfully pled their case to avoid the obviously federal character of the issues they claim. Further, the Court finds that the plaintiffs' "right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law" ... The plaintiffs' purported state law complaint, on its face, obviously seeks to overturn a prior federal ruling which directly covered the issues presented in the purported state law complaint.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims despite a collective bargaining agreement’s grievance and arbitration procedures when pursuing those procedures would be futile.

Anonymous Fireman v. City of Willoughby · filed 1991-12-13

1. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331: ... 6. This Court finds that it does have jurisdiction because it would have been a vain act for the plaintiff to follow the grievance procedures of the collective bargaining agreement. Further, the plaintiff has raised United States constitutional issues which supersede the grievance and arbitration procedures of the collective bargaining agreement.

Section 1331 supplies an independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction over an intervenor’s complaint asserting Voting Rights Act claims.

Benavidez v. Eu · filed 1994-09-01

The complaint in intervention asserts causes of action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973, and thus subject-matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331.

Section 1331 cannot supply federal question jurisdiction through substitution of the FDIC when the suit lacked subject-matter jurisdiction at its outset.

New Bank of New England v. Tritek Communications, Inc. · filed 1992-04-27

This provision, thus, confers federal question subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on suits where the FDIC is a party. ... This Court finds that the same rule should govern cases that do not have jurisdiction, in which a party seeks to create federal question jurisdiction by substituting into the case. ... Plaintiffs motion to substitute must be denied, as there was no case for which this Court had jurisdiction for the FDIC to join.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not confer an equal civil right to have a federal claim heard in federal court.

Carr v. Axelrod · filed 1992-07-15

We agree that a case raising a federal question may be asserted in a federal court — however, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is a jurisdictional statute, not a statute conferring equal civil rights upon the citizens of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when no federal right is implicated by the complaint.

Cardish, Jr. v. U.S. Immigration · filed 2022-07-27

To the extent Cardish attempts to invoke federal question jurisdiction, that effort fails because Cardish has not identified—and the Court cannot discern—any of his federal rights that may be implicated by this case.

Section 1331 requires the right being enforced to arise from federal law; merely identifying a federal issue does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Torre v. State of California · filed 2024-09-16

Merely identifying a federal issue is not enough to confer federal jurisdiction; the right being enforced must arise from federal law. ... Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not itself confer jurisdiction to review decisions of the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records.

Baxley v. Wormuth · filed 2024-02-26

None of the statutes cited in the Complaint confer jurisdiction to review decisions of the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records. See Compl. at 1 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 1346, 2201).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an exhausted claim to compel correction of military records based on alleged arbitrary and capricious board action.

Burkins v. United States · filed 1994-10-04

Thus, having exhausted all administrative remedies, Plaintiffs action to compel the ABCMR to correct his records properly presents a federal question over which this court has jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a pre-action discovery claim invoking RICO, at least on a tentative basis.

HMB Acquisition Corp. v. Cohen · filed 1992-09-07

Consequently, it is appropriate to recognize a RICO pre-action discovery claim as a claim “arising under” the text and purpose of RICO for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over claims arising from Outer Continental Shelf operations is not lost merely because the structure was later removed from the shelf.

Gardes Directional Drilling v. U.S. Turnkey Exploration, Inc. · filed 1993-03-16

Certainly, if these acts occurred on the OCS this court would have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 43 U.S.C. §§ 1333 and 1349(b)(1). ... Using as a guide Republic Bank’s general principle, that jurisdiction, once created, is not divested, although a state of things should arise in which original jurisdiction could not be exercised, this court now holds that it did not lose subject matter jurisdiction by the mere fact that the acts constituting the salvage of the Structure did not occur until after the Structure was removed from the OCS.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a state-law injury claim arising from mineral operations on the Outer Continental Shelf when OCSLA adopts state law as federal law.

Broussard v. John E. Graham & Sons · filed 1992-09-09

In other words, if plaintiff seeks relief based on state law for an accident arising from operations conducted on the Outer Continental Shelf which involve exploration of minerals, the plaintiff seeks relief based on federal law through the OCSLA. Therefore, a claim for relief under state law for an accident which occurs on the Outer Continental Shelf requires a federal district court to exercise federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a cause of action arising under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, including one whose remedy is fashioned under state law adopted as federal law.

Cameron Offshore Boats, Inc. v. Alpine Ocean Seismic Surveys · filed 1994-09-28

However, through operation of OCSLA, plaintiffs cause of action is deemed to arise under federal law. Accordingly, we find that plaintiffs cause of action against the lease holders is based upon OCSLA and properly raises federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides original federal-question jurisdiction over Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act claims even when maritime law supplies the substantive rule of decision.

Francis Barker, Jr. v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., et · filed 2013-02-01

Following this understanding, we hold today that the application of maritime law as the rule of decision does not displace OCSLA’s grant of federal question jurisdiction; 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides original federal question jurisdiction over this claim because it “aris[es] under the ... laws of the United States;” Recar, 853 F.2d at 370, and therefore removal of this action was proper regardless of the citizenship of the parties.

Section 1331 supplies original federal question jurisdiction for OCSLA claims even when maritime law supplies the substantive rule of decision.

Francis Barker, Jr. v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., et · filed 2013-03-22

Following this understanding, we hold today that the application of maritime law as the rule of decision does not displace OCSLA’s grant of federal question jurisdiction; 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides original federal question jurisdiction over this claim because it “aris[es] under the . . . laws of the United States;” Recar, 853 F.2d at 370, and therefore removal of this action was proper regardless of the citizenship of the parties.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a taxpayer’s challenge to a tax assessment when the taxpayer has not satisfied the tax code’s refund-claim prerequisite.

Trainor v. United States · filed 1992-09-09

The bases cited by Trainor as creating jurisdiction fail to overcome section 7122's "pay first, litigate later" jurisdictional limitation. ... Nor is 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1340 a proper basis for jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction to hear a constitutional challenge to federal tax laws, but does not itself authorize injunctive relief or damages.

Snyder v. Internal Revenue Service · filed 1984-10-18

The only other basis for jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal question jurisdiction statute. Plaintiff claims that the tax laws do not apply to him because the laws are unconstitutional. He also claims that certain constitutional rights were violated by the actions of the defendants. This is sufficient to give rise to some kind of federal question jurisdiction based on the constitutional issues involved in such claims. However, not all aspects of the plaintiff’s claims are cognizable under this jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a civil suit involving the FDIC because federal law deems such suits to arise under United States law.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Niblo · filed 1993-05-06

Furthermore, all civil suits to which the FDIC is a party in any capacity are deemed to arise under the laws of the United States, ... giving rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over civil suits involving the FDIC because those suits are deemed to arise under federal law.

Buchner v. Federal Deposit Insurance · filed 1993-01-20

As discussed above, the Buchners' claims are treated as arising under federal law; therefore, the district court has original subject matter jurisdiction of this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

When federal law deems a civil suit involving the FDIC to arise under federal law, § 1331 gives the district court original jurisdiction over all claims in the suit.

Buchner v. F.D.I.C. · filed 1993-01-22

As discussed above, the Buchners' claims are treated as arising under federal law; therefore, the district court has original subject matter jurisdiction of this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil suits involving the FDIC because those suits are deemed to arise under federal law.

American International Enterprises, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation · filed 1993-08-31

The subject matter jurisdiction of a federal district court includes "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." As the FDIC is a party to the [plaintiff's] civil suit, that suit is conclusively presumed to arise under the laws of the United States, and thus is within the original subject matter jurisdiction of the proper federal district court.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action involving the FDIC when read with 12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2)(A), which treats suits involving the FDIC as arising under federal law.

American Casualty Co. of Reading v. Continisio · filed 1994-02-28

The district court had federal question jurisdiction over this declaratory judgment action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 construed with 12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2)(A), which deems any lawsuit to which the FDIC is a party to arise under the laws of the United States.

Federal-question jurisdiction established by the FDIC’s participation continues after the FDIC sells its assets and a private purchaser is substituted as plaintiff.

FAS Capital, LLC v. Carr · filed 2014-03-20

This principle — that once federal question jurisdiction had been established by the FDIC’s participation in the litigation, jurisdiction was not lost when the FDIC was dismissed from the case — applies here.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim based on a voluntary FCC merger commitment that is not a federal law.

Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. CALLISTO · filed 2010-08-24

Without deciding any of the other asserted grounds for dismissal, I conclude that this case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Merger Commitment 7.1 is not a “law” under § 1331.

Section 1331(a) does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a claim under the Proclamation of 1763 because that British royal proclamation is not a law of the United States.

Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe v. Weicker · filed 1993-07-21(a)

Hence the Proclamation of 1763 cannot be considered a “law” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction merely because litigation between private parties involves conflicting state procedural rules.

Brown v. Ellen F. Hammonds, A/K/A Elizabeth F. Brown and Ellen Hammonds Brown · filed 1984-11-30

The plaintiff also alleges federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, an allegation without merit on the face of his petition.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a suit involving the RTC as receiver when federal law deems the suit to arise under United States law.

Lesal Interiors, Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp. · filed 1993-10-25

The court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1441a(a)(11) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this lawsuit is an action to which the RTC, as receiver for CorEast, is a party and is therefore deemed to arise under the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over an interpleader action when the stakeholder’s complaint presents no federal question and resolving the competing claims requires no substantial question of federal law.

Commercial National Bank of Chicago v. Demos · filed 1994-03-10

Therefore, because we find that the bank’s complaint does not state a federal question and that neither cross-claim requires the resolution of a substantial federal question, we find that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear this case.

Section 1331 permits district court review of a procedural challenge to an agency rule under the APA when the governing statute does not assign review to a particular court.

Tda, Inc. v. Ots · filed 1994-09-29

Since Plaintiff challenges the adoption of the regulations rather than a specific transaction, the Court looks to the general provisions of the Home Owners Loan Act in determining jurisdiction. According to the Home Owners Loan Act, the OTS is authorized to adopt regulations affecting savings association. 12 U.S.C. § 1464(d)(3). These general provisions do not require judicial review in any particular judicial forum. Therefore, since the Districts Courts have the power to review procedural challenges under the APA, see 5 U.S.C. § 702 (1970); 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Robbins v. Reagan, 780 F.2d 37, 43 (D.C.Cir.1985), review in this Court is appropriate.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over Title VII claims arising under federal law.

Brown v. B AND D PLASTICS, INC. · filed 1994-12-30

This court may assert subject matter jurisdiction in this cause as Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. (hereinafter “Title VII”). ... Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “[t]he district courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under .... the laws .... of the United States.”

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a suit on an RTC-assigned lease when the RTC assigned its federal right to sue along with the lease.

National Enterprises, Inc. v. Smith · filed 1995-07-19

As I examine the policy involved in the creation of the RTC and the D’Oench, Duhme doctrine, it is clear that this is a case that arises under the laws of the United States and that the RTC can and did assign the right to initiate a suit on this Lease in a federal forum. This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law land-title claim merely because title originated in a federal land patent or a federal statute is invoked only as a defense.

John Ziomek Robert A. Tomei David S. Mana Jeffrey J. Gotelli v. City and County of San Francisco, and Carolyn J. Jenkins · filed 1995-09-25

The mere existence of title in one of the parties derived from a federal land patent does not of itself confer federal question jurisdiction. Nor does the Raker Act, invoked by San Francisco in its defense, confer federal "arising under" jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the district court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law fee dispute between attorneys after the underlying federal case has settled.

Baer v. First Options of Chicago, Incorporated, Appeal of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. v. James R. Ant · filed 1995-12-27

Under these circumstances, the district court’s jurisdiction cannot be predicated on the presence of a federal question; the parties’ claim is governed by Illinois law.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims that immigration officials follow a pattern and practice of violating constitutional rights, even when review of an individual deportation order is restricted.

Wright v. Greene · filed 1996-01-09

Here, Wright, Mihyang Kim Wright and the proposed class of plaintiffs challenge an alleged pattern and practice by the INS to violate their constitutional rights. Therefore, I have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and § 279 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1329 (claims arising under the immigration statutes) and my jurisdiction is not, as Defendants claim, excluded under 8 U.S.C. § 1106a(c).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a dispute raises whether an Indian gaming agreement is governed by the IGRA or whether a tribal court has jurisdiction.

Abdo v. Fort Randall Casino · filed 1997-03-10

Therefore, this Court has federal question jurisdiction in this ease for three reasons. First, the dispute involves the manager of an IGRA regulated Indian gaming casino and the Yankton Sioux Tribe. See Gaming Corp. Of America, 88 F.3d at 550 (preemptive scope of the IGRA encompasses claims involving tribe’s relationship with agents it hires to assist in the process of regulated gaming). Second, the parties dispute whether Abdo’s contract is a management contract under the IGRA or an employment contract that is not covered by the IGRA. See Calvello, 899 F.Supp. at 435. Third, this case is being directed to the Tribal Court and exhaustion within that system. See Bruce H. Lien Co., 93 F.3d at 1421-22 (the existence of tribal court jurisdiction itself presents a federal question within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1331) (citing Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9, 15, 107 S.Ct. 971, 976, 94 L.Ed.2d 10 (1987)).

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims seeking relief from state regulation on the ground that ERISA preempts it.

Bellemead Development Corp. v. New Jersey State Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds · filed 1998-05-13

Jurisdiction over ERISA preemption claims exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a claim framed under state law when the asserted right turns squarely on construing federal law, even though federal law provides no private cause of action.

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Miano · filed 1998-10-19

Even though the parties concede that no private right of action exists under the Clean Water Act to enforce § 123.25(c), the court concludes that Count I arises under federal law inasmuch as the Count I right asserted by plaintiffs under state law turns squarely on the construction of § 123.25(c) and the Clean Water Act.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action only if the declaratory judgment defendant’s potential suit would raise a federal question.

California Casualty & Fire Insurance v. Brinkman · filed 1999-06-03

As mentioned above, in order to establish jurisdiction under § 1331, California Casualty must show that a potential suit brought by the Brinkmans would raise a federal question. ... These claims arise under state law; none of the claims implicate federal law in any manner. As a consequence, Plaintiff California Casualty cannot establish jurisdiction based upon a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a permissive counterclaim based on state-law trespass.

Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. v. 16.66 Acres of Land · filed 1999-10-27

Bangor Hydro’s counterclaim is based on trespass. Therefore, it cannot be said to arise under the Constitution or any federal law.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the declaratory defendant’s threatened action would necessarily raise a substantial federal question.

Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Price · filed 2000-03-14

Though § 2201 does not provide federal question jurisdiction, see West 14th Street Commercial Corp. v. 5 West 14th Owners Corp., 815 F.2d 188, 194 (2d Cir.1987), federal question jurisdiction can arise from a declaratory defendant’s threatened action if that action would necessarily raise a substantial federal question. ... This court has federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims based on or involving interpretation of a Standard Flood Insurance Policy because they present questions of federal law.

Jamal v. Travelers Lloyds of Texas Insurance · filed 2000-05-30

Thus, to the extent that Jamal’s claims are based on or involve the interpretation of the SFIP, they present questions of federal law sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a contract claim whose resolution necessarily requires deciding patent infringement.

Kleinerman v. Luxtron Corp. · filed 2000-08-02

Thus, an analysis of patent infringement is necessary and subject matter jurisdiction lies in a United States District Court.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over an interpleader action arising from enforcement of a federal disgorgement judgment and related asset freeze order.

Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. v. McDonnell · filed 2001-06-19

Subject matter jurisdiction exists in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, concerning a federal question. The federal question before me is vindication of the $75 million disgorgement judgment entered against Brennan, Sr. in July 1995. This judgment, as well as the asset freeze order of April 2000 issued in connection with the order of disgorgement, create the SEC’s cause of action and claim of entitlement to the funds in the SSB brokerage account.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims that a state routinely applies a Medicaid eligibility practice that conflicts with federal law, even if its written plan conforms to federal requirements.

Mertz Ex Rel. Mertz v. Houstoun · filed 2001-07-30

In any event, the court is satisfied that there is federal jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim that despite adoption of a conforming Medicaid plan, a state routinely assesses eligibility in a manner which conflicts with federal law such that it has effectively supplanted its written plan with a contrary practice.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a proposed class when the named plaintiff asserts only state-law claims and some putative members’ claims may be governed by ERISA.

Bowers v. Jefferson Pilot Financial Insurance · filed 2001-08-10

In this Court’s opinion, Defendant’s claim that some putative class member’s claims may involve ERISA is insufficient to sustain this burden. ... The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs claims, which consist solely of state law claims, are insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction on this Court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a Rule 22 interpleader action when the IRS disclaims any interest in the funds and no federal issue remains to be resolved.

Stockton Christian Life Center, Inc. v. United States Internal Revenue Service · filed 2001-09-20

If the IRS were actively litigating its tax lien against Neth or pursuing its claim to the interpled funds, then federal question jurisdiction would lie. However, given that the IRS has stipulated that it disclaims any interest in the interpled funds, there is no federal issue before this court and federal question jurisdiction does not lie.

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

Arum v. Miller · filed 2002-03-20

The Court finds that jurisdiction exists ... under Section 1331 because the action arises under federal law, namely Section 1983.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a due process claim against state officials even when the Telecommunications Act does not prescribe procedures for the state commission.

Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. Bie · filed 2002-05-15

This is true regardless of the recited procedures, or lack thereof, in §§ 251 and 252 of the Telecommunications Act. Therefore, at a minimum, this court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review TDS’s due process claim.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to review state utility commission tariff rates for compliance with federal law, even if jurisdiction under 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6) is unavailable.

Worldcom, Inc. v. Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control · filed 2002-09-25

However, even if there is not a “sufficient nexus” to support jurisdiction under § 252(e)(6), this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law cargo claims merely because COGSA or the Harter Act might apply; the complaint must present a federal question or fall within the complete-preemption exception.

JVC Americas Corp. v. CSX Intermodal, Inc. · filed 2003-06-11

I do not agree with Defendants that COGSA and the Harter Act should be recognized as independent bases for federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; otherwise, they would “effectively nullify [a plaintiffs forum] choice and federalize any and all claims occurring within earshot of a dock or pier.”

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over an APA claim of unreasonable agency delay when no statute restricts review to the courts of appeals.

Mashpee Tribal Cncl v. Norton, Gale A. · filed 2003-08-01

Because no statute re- stricts judicial review of the BIA’s recognition determinations to the Courts of Appeals, compare TRAC, 750 F.2d at 77–78, the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (‘‘federal question’’) to determine whether the BIA was in violation of § 555(b), and, if it was, to issue an appropriate order pursuant to § 706.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim against a private defendant who is not a state official or person acting under color of law.

Schroeder v. Kochanowski · filed 2004-03-31

Federal question jurisdiction by virtue of § 1983 does not lie as to this defendant who is not a state official, or person acting under the color of law subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over claims under § 2241 because each presents a federal question.

Moore v. Keith E. Olson, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana · filed 2004-05-17

Subject-matter jurisdiction, however, is supplied by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as any claim under § 2241 entails a federal question.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that an agency violated the APA if the claim is not patently without merit.

Kim v. Ashcroft · filed 2004-07-27

As such, where a plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated the APA, the court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to section 1331. ... Because it cannot be said that this claim is patently without merit, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a civil RICO claim when the asserted federal cause of action is neither wholly insubstantial nor frivolous, even if its extraterritorial reach is disputed.

Poulos v. Caesars World, Inc. · filed 2004-08-10

The district court has jurisdiction over the underlying RICO action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(providing jurisdiction over federal questions). ... We need not delve too deeply into the question of extraterritoriality as a jurisdictional matter; rather, we need only assure ourselves that “[a] cause of action under our law was asserted here,” ...—that is, that the claim does not “appear[ ] to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” and is not “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over a claim that a state utility commission’s decision violated federal law.

Global NAPs, Inc. v. Verizon New England, Inc. · filed 2004-08-26

A claim that the state agency’s decision violated federal law arises under the laws of the United States and the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a federal statute creates the cause of action or the plaintiff’s right to relief depends on a substantial federal question, including qualifying APA challenges to agency action.

Blackhawk Industries Products Group Unlimited LLC v. United States General Services Administration · filed 2004-12-09

The Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when a federal statute creates the cause of action or the plaintiffs right to relief depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when an affirmative claim requires construction of a congressionally approved interstate or international compact.

Mark B. Mitskovski, Elizabeth A. Martina, Thomas J. Pisa v. Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority, No. 04-5878-C · filed 2006-01-11

The construction of an interstate or international compact approved by Congress under the Compact Clause of the Constitution, see U.S. Const, art. I, § 10, cl. 3, presents a federal question. ... Adjudication of that affirmative contention and claim for relief will inevitably require construction of the compact. ... The federal question jurisdiction of the District Court has been properly invoked.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over Section 1983 claims against individual officers even after the government defendant is dismissed.

Gordon v. Monoson · filed 2006-05-26

Accordingly, this Court retained federal question jurisdiction over Gordon’s Section 1983 claims against Monoson and Berry after the GVI was dismissed as a party.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a Rule 22 interpleader action when a defendant could bring a coercive action requiring resolution of a federal question, even if the interpleader complaint itself does not allege one.

Shelter Mutual Insurance v. Gregory · filed 2008-01-08

However, courts have determined that, given the unusual nature of interpleader actions, federal question jurisdiction can exist in such actions even when a federal question is absent on the face of a well-pleaded complaint if such jurisdiction would have existed in a coercive action by the defendant. ... For the reasons cited above, this Court finds it has subject matter jurisdiction over the interpleader action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and concludes that Plaintiff has properly alleged a claim that would entitle it to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 in its Amended Inter-pleader Complaint.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over suits brought by a state when federal common law governs the dispute.

Hood Ex Rel. Mississippi v. City of Memphis, Tenn. · filed 2009-06-05

Although there was some dispute between the parties below as to the basis of jurisdiction, federal question jurisdiction is present both because 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) includes suits brought by a state and because federal common law will apply to the dispute.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim for continued coverage under a Standard Flood Insurance Policy when relief turns on applying federal law to the policy.

Borden v. Allstate Insurance · filed 2009-11-20

Borden’s right to relief thus turns upon the application of federal law to this SFIP dispute, and the district court had jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over FOIA actions because they present a question of federal law.

Wilson v. U.S. Department of Transportation · filed 2010-08-11

As this case was brought under the FOIA, it presents a question of federal law over which this Court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over a claim challenging federal agency action even when the action is committed to agency discretion and cannot be reviewed on the merits.

De Feyter v. FAA · filed 2011-03-25

Like the absence of a private cause of action, see Part III.A, supra, the fact “[t]hat a plaintiff complains about an action that is committed to agency discretion by law does not mean that his case is not a ‘civil action[] arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,’ 28 U.S.C. § 1331,” nor does it “mean, therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction” over i t .

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory-judgment complaint that, on its face, raises whether FINRA has authority under the Exchange Act to collect disciplinary fines in court.

John J. Fiero and Fiero Brothers, Inc. v. Finra · filed 2011-10-05

For jurisdiction to arise under Section 1331, “the claim as stated in the complaint” must “arise[] under the Constitution or laws of the United States.” ... On its face, the complaint states a claim under the Exchange Act.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction to enforce an agency settlement agreement merely because a federal regulation refers to separate agency guidance.

Blajro v. Citizenship · filed 2015-10-23

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

Section 1331 generally gives district courts jurisdiction over APA challenges to federal agency actions, subject to exceptions.

Hyatt v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office · filed 2018-09-24

Subject to some exceptions inapplicable in this case, APA challenges to federal agency actions usually fall within the district courts’ § 1331 jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over common-law counterclaims arising under District of Columbia law.

Lopez v. Lonch, Inc. · filed 2020-03-24

There is no federal question jurisdiction over Defendants’ common-law counterclaims because Defendants assert them under District of Columbia law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and there is no diversity jurisdiction because Defendants fail to plead an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a settlement-agreement breach when the complaint alleges no plausible claim under federal law.

Brown v. 7-Eleven Incorp · filed 2020-06-18

The Court notes that Plaintiff only raises 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as the basis for jurisdiction, and the case could be dismissed for that reason alone. ... Plaintiff fails to allege facts plausibly suggesting a claim pursuant to the federal constitution, law, or treaty.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims that have no independent federal basis.

Colborn v. Forest Good Eats, LLC · filed 2020-09-21

The court does not have diversity or federal question jurisdiction over defendants’ North Carolina state-law counterclaims. Cf. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a Texas Rule 202 presuit discovery proceeding based on potential federal constitutional claims.

Estate of Rhogena Ann Nicholas DO NOT DOCKET. CASE REMANDED to Harris County Probate Court Number One · filed 2021-01-07

The City’s first basis for removal, that the petitioners’ federal assertions constitute alleged violations of federal Constitutional law and, therefore, the proceeding was removable, fails.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over counterclaims pleaded solely under state law.

Alley v. Quality Eco Technologies, LLC · filed 2021-03-29

Also, the Counterclaims, all of which are plead pursuant to Virginia law, do not present a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Kraft v. Hatch · filed 2021-04-23

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

Section 1331 does not support federal-question jurisdiction over a removed case based only on the defendant’s assumption that ambiguous constitutional claims arise under federal law.

Wilkerson v. Kilgore · filed 2021-07-02

The facts are that Wilkerson filed this action in state court, did not explicitly bring his claims under the federal constitution (despite this court giving him that opportunity), and did not mention § 1983 at all. Doc. 3. So keeping in mind that any doubts about removal should be resolved in favor of remand, see Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994), the court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory claim for a private easement when federal law creates no such cause of action and resolution does not necessarily depend on a substantial federal question.

Monger Family Limited Partnership v. Scully · filed 2022-03-21

The court finds that R.S. 2477 does not provide Plaintiff a cause of action under federal law. ... Based on the foregoing, the court finds that federal jurisdiction does not exist under the second prong of the “arising under” jurisdiction, because MFLP’s claims do not necessarily depend on a resolution of a substantial question of federal law. ... Accordingly, the court concludes that it lacks federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claim under Count I concerning a private easement across Defendants’ properties pursuant to R.S. 2477.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over permissive counterclaims arising under federal trademark law.

Uniters North America, LLC v. ServeCo International, Inc. · filed 2022-09-26

Here, however, SNA’s counterclaims arise under federal trademark law, thereby invoking this Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a pre-suit discovery petition that asserts no federal claim, even if it investigates a potential § 1983 action.

Leos v. Bexar County · filed 2022-10-04

Here, Petitioner has not filed a complaint or petition that asserts any substantial, disputed question of federal law. Her petition does not assert any claim or cause of action upon which a court could grant relief. Petitioner merely seeks pre-suit discovery under Texas procedure. That she investigates a potential action under § 1983 does not present a federal question at this point.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer complaint that raises no federal statutory or constitutional question.

MG Evolve Apartments, LLC v. Okyere · filed 2023-04-07

The Complaint also discloses no federal statutory or constitutional question that would support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over an FAA award challenge only when the application itself presents an independent federal question.

Tanjutco v. NYLife Securities LLC · filed 2023-07-27

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not independently grant subject matter jurisdiction to a federal district court. ... Petitioner asks the Court to confirm and vacate various aspects of the arbitration award, but she does not state an independent cause of action arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state court receivership that presents no federal question.

First Interstate Bank v. Wall Street Apartments LLC · filed 2024-03-05

Here, a state court receivership does not present a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a removed unlawful detainer action merely because the defendant has filed a related federal case.

U.S. Bank, National Association v. Polanco · filed 2024-04-15

Notwithstanding the pendency of a related case, the “court must consider whether it has jurisdiction over the removed unlawful detainer action.” See U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Tyler, 2010 WL 4918790, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2010) (remanding an unlawful detainer action even though the defendant filed a related case over which the court possessed subject matter jurisdiction). In view of those authorities, the Court concludes that it lacks federal question jurisdiction over the Unlawful Detainer action.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a petition to confirm or vacate an arbitration award when the application presents no federal question independent of the FAA.

Securities America, Inc. v. Smith · filed 2024-09-03

With no subject matter jurisdiction provided by the FAA and no federal question presented by the applications before it, the Court turns to diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a permissive counterclaim that identifies no federal claim.

Cook v. Superior Assisted Living, LLC · filed 2024-11-26

As pleaded, the Court can only construe the allegations as a permissive counterclaim, which requires an independent basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Superior and Ms. Davis identify no federal claim or basis for diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over an interpleader action arising under ERISA.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. SEIDENFADEN · filed 2025-02-25

Plaintiff is correct that, as this interpleader action arises under ERISA, the Court does have federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a standalone NLRA § 8(f) dispute without an independent federal-law basis for the claim.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO v. Hogan · filed 2025-04-25

It is true that “[f]ederal courts may decide labor law questions that arise as collateral issues in suits brought under independent federal remedies,” id., but Hogan has not identified any independent federal-law basis for his counterclaim.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the only immediate and real controversy arises under state law and a potential federal claim is speculative.

Thunderhead of Ankeny, Inc. v. Chicken Bones of Kearney, Inc. · filed 2025-07-08

The only justiciable controversy between the parties therefore arose under state law. Without any similarly immediate and real controversy arising under federal law, the district court lacked jurisdiction over Thunderhead’s suit.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over § 1983 claims, but an amended complaint asserting only state-law claims lacks that basis for original jurisdiction after the federal claims are dismissed.

Brown v. Town of Valley Brook · filed 2020-08-03

The court did have jurisdiction over those claims until it dismissed them under Rule 4(m) for lack of service. ... It was futile to amend the complaint because the proposed amendment asserted only state-law claims that, absent original jurisdiction, were also subject to dismissal.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory counterclaim alleging that federal statutes violate the Constitution, even when it seeks no other relief.

JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC. v. HAYES · filed 2019-09-06

This Court finds an independent jurisdictional basis for Defendants’ declaratory counterclaim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a wrongful eviction claim based on the CDC’s COVID-19 eviction moratorium.

Holliday v. CPM Property Holdings LLC · filed 2021-12-08

Thus, because ... Plaintiff’s complaint does not involve a federal question, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the present dispute.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over an insurer’s reimbursement suit against an insured under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act merely because the insurer asserts a unique federal interest or anticipates a federal preemption defense.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois v. Cruz · filed 2007-07-27

We conclude that the district court’s judgment, dismissing Blue Cross’s suit for want of federal jurisdiction, must be affirmed, and Blue Cross will have to start over in state court — where it can if it wishes plead preemption, based on the contract, as a defense to Cruz’s defensive invocation of the common fund doctrine.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a FEHBA reimbursement dispute when differing state rules affect insureds’ net recoveries rather than the uniformity of plan benefits.

Van Horn v. Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield · filed 2007-10-31

Here, as in Cruz, the disuniformity that results is not a disuniformity in benefits, but a possible disuniformity in the net financial position of insureds from state to state. Therefore, the Court finds that it does not have federal jurisdiction under the two-part Boyle test.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a FEHBA reimbursement dispute on the asserted federal-common-law grounds.

Ray v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association · filed 2024-09-28

Blue Cross’s removal of the entire case on federal questions was therefore clearly improper and foreclosed by clearly established law.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a carrier’s declaratory judgment action concerning benefits under a federal employee health plan when the dispute does not sufficiently implicate a federal interest.

Rocky Mountain Hospital & Medical Service v. Phillips · filed 1993-11-02

Here, BCBS premises jurisdiction on the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... I believe Howard is still good law. The underlying assumptions upon which it was based have not changed significantly, and the Tenth Circuit continues to rely on it. ... Therefore, following the authority by which I am bound, Phillips’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED.

Section 1331 does not require Attorney General certification that a federal agency acted under the authority of the United States.

Davis v. United States · filed 1993-12-17

There is no certification requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 under which plaintiff brought his district court action, or under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, which is the jurisdictional basis for the instant action and an alleged additional jurisdictional basis for the district court action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over a civil action seeking return of administratively forfeited property on a claim that inadequate notice violated due process.

United States v. Howell · filed 2004-02-19

If as Howell claims the government deprived him of his property without adequate notice and therefore without due process of law, he can seek its return by means of a civil action based on the federal-question jurisdiction of the federal courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 can support jurisdiction over a collateral due process challenge seeking equitable relief from a DEA administrative forfeiture declaration.

United States v. Woodall · filed 1993-12-28

Although there may be concurrent jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, jurisdiction is more soundly based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1355, along with 19 U.S.C. § 1609(b) and 21 U.S.C. § 881, because a collateral due process attack on a DEA forfeiture declaration necessarily presents a claim for equitable relief, and the Tucker Act does not confer equity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over general federal constitutional challenges to state laws that do not require reviewing a particular state court decision.

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

This rule arises from the interplay of two jurisdictional statutes: 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which grants district courts original jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under” federal law, and 28 U.S.C. § 1257, which grants the Supreme Court the right to review “final judgments ... rendered by the highest court of a State.” ... Therefore, the district court did have subject matter jurisdiction to hear appellants’ facial challenges to the constitutionality of Proposition 115.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that the government gave inadequate notice of an administrative forfeiture.

Lopes v. United States · filed 1994-09-28

It is indisputable, however, that Plaintiffs’ First Claim for relief raises a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over procedural challenges to agency rules under the APA when the governing statute does not require review in another forum.

Thrift Depositors of America, Inc. v. Office of Thrift Supervision · filed 1994-09-29

Since Plaintiff challenges the adoption of the regulations rather than a specific transaction, the Court looks to the general provisions of the Home Owners Loan Act in determining jurisdiction. According to the Home Owners Loan Act, the OTS is authorized to adopt regulations affecting savings association. 12 U.S.C. § 1464(d)(3). These general provisions do not require judicial review in any particular judicial forum. Therefore, since the Districts Courts have the power to review procedural challenges under the APA, see 5 U.S.C. § 702 (1970); 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Robbins v. Reagan, 780 F.2d 37, 43 (D.C.Cir.1985), review in this Court is appropriate.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions collaterally challenging administrative forfeitures on due process grounds.

United States v. Schiavo · filed 1995-08-18

The district courts have jurisdiction to entertain collateral due process attacks on administrative forfeitures in a civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over collateral due process challenges to administrative forfeitures.

United States v. Deninno · filed 1996-12-24

However, federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is available for the limited purpose of considering collateral due process attacks; that is, deciding whether the forfeiture offended due process rights.

Section 1331 permits a collateral due process challenge to an administrative forfeiture, but other challenges are waived when the forfeiture procedure has no defects.

United States v. Desantiago-Flores · filed 1999-09-07

However, federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is available for the limited purpose of considering collateral due process attacks . . . . If an administrative forfeiture does not have any procedural defects, other challenges to the forfeiture, which could have been addressed under the statutory and regulatory procedures, must be considered waived.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a claim seeking the return of property when Customs fails to initiate forfeiture proceedings and give notice.

Mantilla v. United States · filed 2002-09-03

We have previously held that a claimant’s "collateral[ ] attack [of] an inadequately noticed administrative forfeiture" presents a proper federal question, thereby conferring jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. S 1331. ... We agree with Mantilla that his claim is a natural extension of these decisions. Indeed, this case involves the most inadequate notice possible: Customs failed to initiate forfeiture proceedings altogether, and thus never attempted to give notice of the funds’ status.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a return-of-property claim when the government fails to initiate forfeiture proceedings or give notice of the property’s status.

Mantilla v. United States of America U.S. Customs Service · filed 2002-09-03

We reject Customs’ contention that no statutory provision authorizes our jurisdiction over Mantilla’s claim. We have previously held that a claimant’s “collateral!] attack [of] an inadequately noticed administrative forfeiture” presents a proper federal question, thereby conferring jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... We agree with Mantilla that his claim is a natural extension of these decisions.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to review claims that notice of an administrative seizure and proposed forfeiture was constitutionally deficient.

Mohammad, Najah v. United States · filed 2006-02-27

In United States v. Duke, 229 F.3d 627, 629 (7th Cir. 2000), we clarified that jurisdiction to review a claim that notice of an administrative seizure and proposed forfeiture was constitutionally deficient arises under the general federal-question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. That point is now firmly established.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject-matter jurisdiction over challenges to Antiquities Act national monument designations, even when the challenge fails to state a claim.

MA Lobstermen's Association v. Ross · filed 2019-12-27

Because district courts possess subject-matter jurisdiction over challenges to Antiquities Act designations under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, dismissal of such challenges pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is inappropriate.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction for pre-enforcement challenges to Medicaid regulations because the Medicaid Act does not restrict judicial review in the way the Medicare Act does.

Illinois Council On Long Term Care Inc. v. Shalala · filed 1998-08-13

The Medicaid Act contains nothing comparable to § 405(h) or § 1395ii. The general federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 therefore supplies the avenue of judicial review, and it has been understood for a long time that courts are not to invent novel obstacles to the use of this jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the merits of an administrative forfeiture when the claimant elected administrative remission instead of contesting the forfeiture in court.

Laconia Savings Bank v. USA · filed 2000-06-16

As to LSB's remaining (and largely undeveloped) claims that the government's forfeiture of the 1997 Dodge Viper violated its rights under the Just Compensation Clause, as well as the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the APA and § 1331 to address those claims.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction to review constitutional challenges to the merits of an administrative forfeiture when the claimant elected administrative remission instead of contesting the forfeiture in court.

Laconia Savings Bank v. United States · filed 2000-06-16

As to LSB’s remaining (and largely undeveloped) claims that the government’s forfeiture of the 1997 Dodge Viper violated its rights under the Just Compensation Clause, as well as the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the APA and § 1331 to address those claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject-matter jurisdiction over a challenge to agency action even when the action may be unreviewable under the APA.

Berry v. United States Department of Labor · filed 2016-08-11

The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... To the extent the district court granted the Department’s motion to dismiss on lack-of-jurisdiction grounds, it was mistaken. ... The Department’s challenge to the availability of judicial review under the APA is properly analyzed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and whether plaintiff has stated a valid claim for relief.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to state laws even when state officials are defendants, and state sovereignty alone does not justify declining that jurisdiction.

Bloom v. O'BRIEN · filed 1993-12-30

The federal district courts are clearly entrusted with “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution ... of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court should not refuse to exercise this jurisdiction merely because state officials are the defendants in a civil action challenging the constitutionality of a state law.

Section 1331 supports federal jurisdiction over Social Security Act claims for prospective relief against state officials when those claims are distinct from a dispute with the Secretary.

Sorenson v. Concannon · filed 1994-11-17

Therefore, based upon the legal principles discussed above, I conclude that § 405(h) does not apply to Plaintiffs’ claims against the State. ... Because I find that this Court has jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and that Plaintiffs state a viable § 1983 action against the State, I do not address whether this Court has mandamus jurisdiction over the State.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a suit against state regulatory commissioners in their official capacities seeking prospective relief for an alleged violation of federal law.

ACSOF Fairbanks, Inc. v. GCI Communication Corp. · filed 2003-03-12

We hold that the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to entertain such a suit against the commissioners.

Section 1331 permits a preemption claim seeking injunctive or declaratory relief against a state official when the complaint alleges enforcement or threatened enforcement of a preempted statute or regulation.

Union Pacific R. Co. v. Harris County, Tex. · filed 2011-05-17

Numerous authorities both in and outside of the Fifth Circuit have adopted the rule that jurisdiction can stem from an injunctive- or declaratory-judgment claim alleging that state action is preempted under the Supremacy Clause, but a prerequisite for jurisdiction under this doctrine is an allegation that a state official is enforcing or is threatening to enforce a preempted state regulation or statute.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over suits seeking to enjoin state officials from interfering with federal rights, including claims that federal law preempts threatened state enforcement.

Google, Inc. v. Hood · filed 2015-03-27

Google’s request for injunctive relief falls within the embrace of this same federal question subject matter jurisdiction. ... Also suitable for federal judicial review are requests for injunctive relief based on claims of federal preemption.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims seeking to enjoin a state officer’s alleged violations of federal law, including claims for declaratory relief.

Google, Incorporated v. James Hood, III · filed 2016-04-08

Here too, Google’s claims seeking to enjoin a state officer’s alleged violations of federal law invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction for a mandamus petition seeking to direct state officials in state court proceedings.

Ordoukhanian v. Bailey · filed 2024-04-22

None of the proposed jurisdictional bases offered by petitioner – 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 or 242, or 28 U.S.C. § 1331 – have any relevance to a mandamus action or provide any authority for the Court to decide this case.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim seeking prospective relief against a state official for enforcing a statute alleged to be federally preempted when the federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

Pharm Research and Mfr v. Murrill · filed 2026-02-09

Here, the federal question appears on the face of the complaint. Federal-question jurisdiction therefore exists.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff seeks to enjoin state officials on the ground that federal law preempts state regulation.

Local Union No. 12004, United Steelworkers v. Massachusetts · filed 2004-07-30

In that context, a claim of preemption -- though ultimately "defensive" in the sense that it seeks to prevent harms threatened by state officials -- does constitute a federal question under § 1331.

Section 1331 grants general federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself create an independent basis for jurisdiction.

Burditt v. Geneva Capital, LLC · filed 2006-01-05

Section 1331 itself does not create an independent basis for jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims based directly on federal statutes and regulations even when the federal law does not provide the asserted cause of action.

Tamiami Partners, Ltd. ex rel. Tamiami Development Corp. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians · filed 1995-08-16

It is also clear that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Tamiami’s second and third claims, which are based directly on IGRA and the NIGC’s regulations. That, as we conclude in subsection III.B.l.b. infra, IGRA does not provide — either expressly or impliedly — the cause of action Tamiami alleges in its second claim did not defeat the district court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 “[f]or it is well settled that the failure to state a proper cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for a dismissal for want of jurisdiction.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 776, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a dispute concerning the interpretation of a franchise agreement with an Indian tribe when the complaint presents no federal claim.

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Tonawanda Band · filed 1994-08-03

Applying the well-pleaded complaint rule, the complaint fails to state a claim arising under federal law. Plaintiff claims the right and obligation under the franchise agreement to provide power to all qualified applicants on reservation land, as it has done since 1936, without the approval of the Council of Chiefs. The claim is one of contractual interpretation which does not raise federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over an attorney malpractice claim that alleges no denial of a specific right under federal law.

McDermott v. Robert Troll Lynch Lynch & Lynch Company · filed 1994-06-22

The district court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 because a claim of attorney malpractice simply does not allege a denial of a specific right guaranteed under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction when a federal question otherwise exists; invoking it alone does not establish federal jurisdiction.

Jimenez v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · filed 1994-07-25

Jimenez contends that the district court erred by determining that his case was a Bivens action because his amended complaint alleged jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331 and 1343. This contention lacks merit. "28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 confers jurisdiction only where a federal question is otherwise at issue; it does not create federal jurisdiction."

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a claim that raises no issue involving a federal statute or the Constitution.

Whitney v. Riccordino Realty · filed 1994-10-19

Whitney raises no issue involving either a federal statute or the Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. The parties here are not claimed to be diverse. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332. And no other provision of Title 28 of the United States Code gives the federal courts jurisdiction over Whitney's complaint as it now stands. We agree with the district court's dismissal of this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not establish federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiffs invoke federal law without alleging sufficient facts to support its application.

Offutt v. Kaplan · filed 1995-04-12

Plaintiffs cover a wide field with a hit-or-miss effectiveness to make assertions that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 28 U.S.C. 1332, 28 U.S.C. 1343, 28 U.S.C. 1651 and 42 U.S.C. 2000e of the 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964, defendants violated her rights under the Due Process Causes of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to support their assertions that any of the above sections are applicable.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a mortgage foreclosure claim based on the Constitution’s Property Clause or an unsupported claim of rights under 43 U.S.C. Sec. 15.

Patrick J. Cragin and Judith M. Cragin v. Comerica Mortgage Company · filed 1995-10-24

The Cragins alleged jurisdiction based on federal statutory and constitutional law. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. However, Article IV, Sec. 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution does not provide a jurisdictional basis for this action, as it merely authorizes Congress to dispose of and to make rules and regulations regarding territory and property that belongs to the United States. The Cragins apparently argue that federal jurisdiction arises under 43 U.S.C. Sec. 15, because they are heirs or assignees of the United States by virtue of the original land grant which divested federal property to the State of Michigan. This argument is completely lacking in merit.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no federal question.

Davis v. United States · filed 1995-11-03

With regard to defendant Dave’s, plaintiff has not established federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. There is no federal question alleged and the parties are not diverse.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a federal claim survives facial scrutiny and is neither immaterial nor insubstantial, even if the claim ultimately fails on the merits.

Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund · filed 1996-04-15

Because Nowak's asserted basis for federal question jurisdiction survives facial scrutiny and is neither immaterial nor insubstantial, we find that the district court erred in characterizing its dismissal of Nowak's claim as one for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only state law contract and promissory estoppel claims.

Corell v. Teamsters Union Local No. 828 · filed 1996-08-15

Lastly, defendants asserted subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; however, as discussed above, Corell has asserted state law contract claims and a state law claim of promissory estoppel. Her petition fails to plead a federal question; thus, the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 either.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint refers to the Constitution when its allegations present no federal question.

Wolf v. Fliss · filed 1997-01-09

It is clear that Mr. Wolf's suit does not involve a federal question despite its references to the United States Constitution.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when none of the claims arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Keene v. Auto Owners Insurance · filed 1999-11-17

Here, however, none of the Keenes’ claims arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” as would be necessary for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a substantial constitutional claim pleaded in a complaint.

Koziol v. Hanna · filed 2000-08-01

The pleadings allege a valid and substantial claim, and this court may hear the case based on federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to raise a federal question for federal-question jurisdiction.

Miller v. First Natl Bnk Van · filed 2001-04-02

His complaint reflected that the parties were not diverse, and it failed to raise a federal question issue.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the complaint for federal-question jurisdiction.

Ellis v. Huttig Bldg. Prods., Inc. · filed 2001-04-23

Not so here; Plaintiffs raise no federal question, and the value of the relief sought is unknown.

Section 1331 provides no jurisdiction when the complaint presents no question arising under federal law.

General Electric Capital Corp. v. Haymer · filed 2001-07-26

The Court finds, however, that the complaint does not present any question arising under federal law. Therefore, the Court lacks a basis for asserting jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction only when the claim turns on federal law or the Constitution and is not patently without merit.

Zheng v. Reno · filed 2001-09-28

Even if the INS’s decisions regarding the scheduling of interviews were subject to judicial review under the APA, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 would still not confer jurisdiction on this Court to review the failure of the INS to schedule an interview of the plaintiff before now. Federal question jurisdiction may be exercised over a claim only if (1) the claim turns on an interpretation of the laws or Constitution of the United States and (2) the claim is not “patently without merit.”

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction without diversity of citizenship.

Raimondo v. Village of Armada · filed 2002-03-26

Diversity of citizenship is not required in order for the Court to exercise its .subject matter jurisdiction over a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a substantial claim arising under a federal treaty even if the claim ultimately fails on the merits.

Coando v. Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. · filed 2002-08-15

Plaintiff’s assertions involving the construction of that treaty are a matter of federal concern that conferred jurisdiction on the district court notwithstanding the failure of those averments to sustain his cause of action.

Section 1331 gives a court no jurisdiction to remand an action for administrative proceedings when the complaint presents no federal question.

Yates v. District of Columbia · filed 2002-09-18

Moreover, as no federal question is presented, this court has no basis upon which to enter an order remanding this action for further administrative proceedings, or to dismiss it without prejudice for plaintiff to file the action in the Superior Court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint based on mail fraud, which has no private right of action, or a RICO claim that is not pleaded with sufficient particularity.

Deasy v. Louisville & Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District · filed 2002-09-18

Moreover, Deasy’s complaint cannot otherwise be construed to raise a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Deasy alleges two potential bases for federal question jurisdiction: mail fraud and racketeering. Mail fraud is a criminal offense for which there is no private right of action. ... Therefore, Deasy’s first possible basis for federal question jurisdiction must fail. Moreover, Deasy did not plead his allegations of mail fraud with sufficient particularity to state a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68. ... Therefore, Deasy’s second possible basis for federal question jurisdiction must also fail.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when none of the plaintiff’s claims rests on federal law.

Robison v. University of Texas Houston Health Science Center · filed 2003-09-02

Therefore, because neither a federal question or diversity of citizenship exists, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this cause of action and it was properly dismissed.