28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Igartua v. The Police Department · filed 2019-11-06

Federal subject matter jurisdiction exists only where the action presents a federal question, as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or where there is diversity jurisdiction, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Here, plaintiff cannot invoke diversity jurisdiction because all parties are alleged to be citizens of the State of New York. Igartua’s complaint also fails to present a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a negligence action that raises no federal question despite a cursory § 1983 reference in its caption.

Owens-El v. Maryland Transit Administration · filed 2020-08-26

28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides the district courts with jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” which is described as “federal question jurisdiction.” ... Because this action raises no federal question and is not based on diversity of citizenship, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over medical malpractice claims that do not implicate a federal question.

Echevarria v. Brandes · filed 2020-11-17

Mr. Echevarria’s objections do not contest the Report’s finding that his claims failed to invoke federal question jurisdiction. Objections. Thus, as to that finding, this Court reviews the Report for clear error—and finds none.

Section 1331 provides federal jurisdiction when a complaint presents a federal question.

Rushing v. U.S. Bank · filed 2021-08-23

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... Plaintiff has neither specified the basis of federal court jurisdiction nor pled sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; a complaint alleging only medical malpractice does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Howard v. Good Samaritan Hospital · filed 2022-01-10

As for federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, even construing the Complaint liberally, the Magistrate Judge could not glean a federal cause of action. (Id. at #201). Having reviewed the Complaint, neither can this Court.

Section 1331 requires facts establishing a federal question; an unsupported allegation of discrimination does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Crum v. Emergency-Georgetown · filed 2022-05-26

Plaintiff has failed to state a viable federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; a complaint asserting only state-law claims does not satisfy that requirement.

Doe v. Jones · filed 2022-06-08

Federal jurisdiction exists only when a “federal question” is presented, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or when there is “diversity of citizenship” and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... Here, the complaint does not set forth any basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction, which is absent when the operative complaint asserts no federal claim.

Hall v. Department of Corrections Medical Department · filed 2022-07-25

Because Plaintiff's latest complaint makes clear he is not asserting any federal claims against any of the defendants, this Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. The subject matter jurisdiction of federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a Clean Air Act claim seeking damages the Act does not authorize does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Rothschild v. The Pacific Companies · filed 2023-06-21

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... Accordingly, the Complaint does not sufficiently allege a basis for either federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear clearly and distinctly; merely invoking federal authority without a cognizable claim does not establish jurisdiction.

McDaniel v. State of North Carolina · filed 2024-11-27

Nor has Plaintiff stated a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... “The mere suggestion of a federal question is not sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of federal courts.” Id. Here, although Plaintiff invokes certain federal authority, see Compl. at 2, her allegations fail to state a cognizable claim under any of the cited law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the claim can be resolved without deciding a federal issue.

Nash Hospitals, Inc. v. UnitedHealthcare of North Carolina, Inc. · filed 2025-07-29

Here, a federal question is not a necessary element of any of plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over a matter requiring interpretation of a United States treaty.

In re Letter Rogatory from the Local Court · filed 1994-04-07

Congress has conferred original jurisdiction of matters arising under federal treaties to the United States District Courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because it requires an interpretation of a treaty of the United States, specifically, the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, 23 UST 2555, TIAS 7444.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a treaty claim when the treaty gives the plaintiff no rights and permits no private action.

El Paso County Water Improvement District Number 1 v. International Boundary & Water Commission, United States Section · filed 1988-07-27

Since Plaintiff’s claim does not “arise under” the 1906 Convention, this Court has no § 1331 jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claim as a civil action arising under a treaty.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a Rule 22 interpleader when a claimant could bring a coercive action arising under federal law to enforce a federal tax levy.

CPS Electric, Ltd. v. United States · filed 2001-08-24

Nonetheless, Rule 22 interpleader may still be possible under this Court’s general federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, if this action arises under federal law. ... However, the actions between the United States and Plaintiffs and the United States and Koski clearly arise under federal law. The United States’ claim against Plaintiffs is based upon a tax levy which the IRS served upon CPS.

Section 1331 can support jurisdiction over a Rule 22 interpleader action without a federal question on the stakeholder’s complaint when the stakeholder’s relief requires resolving a substantial question of federal law.

Commercial National Bank of Chicago v. Demos · filed 1994-06-21

We follow Corcoran and the lead of those other circuits and hold that jurisdiction over this action may be proper despite the absence of a federal question on the bank's well-pleaded complaint. In order to do so, however, we must now determine whether the resolution of a substantial question of federal law will provide the bank the relief it seeks.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an interpleader action when resolving a state-law claim could eliminate the need to decide the asserted federal claim.

Boatmen's First Nat. Bank of Kansas City v. McCoy · filed 1994-08-23

If resolution of a state law claim will negate the need for a resolution of any federal law claim, the interpleader action does not arise under federal law. ... In this case, I find that the real question at issue is the state law claim of whether the Durable Power of Attorney was valid. If that claim is resolved against defendant Willie McCoy, then the need to determine McCoy’s § 1981 claim is obviated. Therefore, I find that there is no subject matter jurisdiction and this case should be remanded.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a Rule 22 interpleader action when any claimant asserts a claim arising under federal law, including a claim to enforce a federal tax lien.

Blackmon Auctions, Inc. v. Van Buren Truck Center, Inc. · filed 1995-08-28

However, the clear consensus of the federal courts is that an inter-pleader action arises under federal law if any of the defendants/claimants asserts a claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a Rule 22 interpleader when a claimant could bring a federal coercive action against the stakeholder to enforce a tax levy.

Amoco Production Co. v. Aspen Group · filed 1998-07-02

Although the mere existence of a federal tax lien does not suffice to present a federal question, the enforcement of a lien or levy against a non-compliant third party certainly presents a federal question, especially when the delinquent taxpayer questions the validity of the levy. Thus, a coercive action brought by the United States against Amoco would' present a federal question. Accordingly, federal question jurisdiction exists over this preemptive interpleader action by Amoco.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a Rule 22 interpleader action brought by an ERISA claims fiduciary seeking equitable relief concerning plan proceeds.

Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company v. Bryant · filed 2022-10-04

Colonial’s Complaint alleges that the Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the action arises under ERISA. ... Further, Colonial characterizes itself as the “claims fiduciary,” [Doc. 1 ¶ 11], and interpleader is a fundamentally equitable remedy, see, e.g., Humble Oil & Refin. Co. v. Copeland, 38 F,2d 364, 368 (4th Cir. 1968) (“The genesis of interpleader is equity.”). Accordingly, the Court has federal question jurisdiction over Colonial’s claim.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an interpleader action involving an insurance policy governed by ERISA.

Securian Life Ins. Co. v. Smith · filed 2024-08-26

This interpleader action also is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This action meets the requirements for federal question jurisdiction as the subject group insurance policy is part of an employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over disputes involving tribal oil and gas leases governed by federal statutes and regulations.

Comstock Oil & Gas Inc. v. Alabama & Coushatta Indian Tribes · filed 2001-08-27

The federal regulations and statutes governing tribal oil and gas leases are adequate to invoke federal question jurisdiction over the instant dispute between the Tribe and oil companies.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over disputes arising under federal statutes and regulations governing mineral leases on Indian lands.

Comstock Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Alabama & Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas · filed 1999-12-28

The underlying cause of action presents federal questions under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 that arise under 25 U.S.C. 2101-2108 and C.F.R. Part 225.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over claims concerning beneficial ownership of Indian trust land and related fiduciary duty and equitable estoppel claims that present questions of federal law.

Pit River Home & Agricultural Cooperative Ass'n v. United States · filed 1994-07-21

The Association's claims for beneficial ownership of the Ranch and its additions, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable estoppel are recognizable under Secs. 1331 and 1361. These issues present questions of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an Indian housing authority’s eviction claim against individual tribal members when the claim arises under state landlord-tenant law and the tribe’s possessory rights are not implicated.

Round Valley Indian Housing Authority v. Hunter · filed 1995-10-24

Because landlord-tenant disputes are matters of state law, an action for eviction cannot be the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a contract dispute concerning Indian trust property when establishing the asserted right requires interpreting tribal or local law.

Longie v. Spirit Lake Tribe Spirit Lake Health Administration Spirit Lake Tribe Refuse Control Services · filed 2005-03-07

If an interpretation of tribal or local law is necessary to establish or clarify a right sought to be enforced based on a contract, then jurisdiction under section 1331 does not exist, even if the subject of the contract is Indian trust property.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over broad constitutional challenges to FAA practices, even though exclusive appellate review of final FAA orders bars district court review of claims tied to a particular order.

Mace v. Skinner · filed 1994-09-06

Thus, and for purposes of the instant appeal, Clark may be read as standing for the proposition that section 1006 of the Act generally preempts district courts from exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over claims against FAA, NTSB, and DOT officials involving final orders that are otherwise subject to judicial review under the Act. ... In the light of the above, we conclude that the district court erred by holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Mace’s Bivens-type complaint.

Section 1331 alone does not confer jurisdiction over a law-of-nations claim when Congress has not granted a right of action.

Doe v. Karadzic · filed 1994-09-07

Absent a clear statute from Congress, or direction from higher Courts, this Court finds that actions based only on § 1331 without an express right of action granted by Congress, must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim alleging a violation of international law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Backlund v. Hessen · filed 1995-11-06

Plaintiff provides no legal support and this Court has found none indicating that he has a claim in federal court for a violation of either the Universal Declaration or the International Covenant. Courts have declined to recognize that federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim for a violation of international law.

Section 1331 supplies no independent jurisdiction over a law-of-nations claim that fails under the Alien Tort Claims Act.

Doe I v. Unocal Corp. · filed 2000-08-31

The Court has already determined that Plaintiffs’ international law claims under the ATCA fail as a matter of law. For these reasons, the Court also finds that section 1331 does not independently provide jurisdiction in this court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a severed assault and battery claim arising solely under District of Columbia law.

Collier v. District of Columbia · filed 2014-05-30

Because the assault and battery claim arises from D.C. law, federal question jurisdiction does not exist. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over tribal-law tort claims when resolving them does not require deciding a federal-law issue.

Temple v. Langdeau · filed 2021-06-29

“In sum, the outcome of this case would not be controlled or conditioned by federal law,” but rather tribal law. ... Therefore, the court finds it does not have federal question subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims alleging a violation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

State of Idaho v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe · filed 2015-07-22

The court had jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331 because Idaho alleged a violation of the IGRA.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over a simple contract claim against an Indian tribe when the claim raises no constitutional issue and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides no private cause of action.

Whiteco Metrocom Division of Whiteco Industries, Inc. v. Yankton Sioux Tribe · filed 1995-10-12

This is a simple contract dispute and raises no issues of constitutional magnitude. ... IGRA does not create a private cause of action for individuals. ... I find that this Court does not have diversity jurisdiction over this contract dispute ... and that there is no independent federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a contract claim that asserts duties imposed by federal gaming law and incorporated into the contract.

TAMIAMI PARTNERS, LTD. v. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA · filed 1995-08-16

Tamiami's claims that the Tribe has an obligation under IGRA and the NIGC's regulations--which the Agreement incorporates--to process an application for a license in good faith and that the Tribe has breached that obligation are claims arising under federal law; hence the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Tamiami's breach of contract claim against the Tribe.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a tribal gaming dispute arising under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or federal common law governing relations among federal, tribal, and state governments.

SYCUAN BAND OF MISSION INDIANS v. ROACHE · filed 1995-04-28

Section 1331 is enough; this case clearly arises under federal law, be it IGRA or the federal common law of Indian affairs that allocates jurisdiction among the federal government, the tribes, and the states.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when deciding whether a tribal gaming contract is a management contract governed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Calvello v. Yankton Sioux Tribe · filed 1995-09-01

Calvello asserts that the Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Because the parties dispute whether Calvello’s contract is a management contract under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. § 2711, or an employment contract that is not covered by the IGRA, the Court finds that it has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over an Indian land possession dispute only when resolving the claim requires interpretation of a federal right of possession; a tribal housing authority’s ordinary landlord eviction claim does not qualify merely because its lease derives from a tribe’s federal possessory right.

Owens Valley Indian Housing Authority v. Gifford Turner · filed 1999-08-02

But because adjudication of OVIHA’s suit does not require an interpretation of that federal right, the suit does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of IGRA even when IGRA provides no statutory right of action.

State of Oklahoma v. Hobia · filed 2014-11-10

Turning first to the State’s arguments, it is true that the Supreme Court in Bay Mills held that “[t]he general federal-question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, gives a district court subject matter jurisdiction to decide any claim alleging a violation of IGRA,” and that “[n]othing in [IGRA] § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) or any other provision of IGRA limits that grant of jurisdiction.” Bay Mills, 134 S.Ct. at 2029 n.2. Thus, there can be no doubt that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the State’s claim in this case that defendants violated IGRA.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject-matter jurisdiction over claims alleging IGRA violations even when IGRA supplies no valid cause of action.

State of Oklahoma v. Hobia · filed 2014-12-22

Turning first to the State’s arguments, it is true that the Supreme Court in Bay Mills held that “[t]he general federal-question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, gives a district court subject matter jurisdiction to decide any claim alleging a violation of IGRA,” and that “[n]othing in [IGRA] § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) or any other provision of IGRA limits that grant of jurisdiction.” Bay Mills, 134 S.Ct. at 2029 n.2. Thus, there can be no doubt that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the State’s claim in this case that defendants violated IGRA.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law surety bond claim merely because proving it requires establishing a default under a collective bargaining agreement.

International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers v. Insurance Co. of the West · filed 2005-03-30

Admittedly, to prove it is entitled to relief under the bond, the plaintiff will have to establish that RECON defaulted on its obligations under the collective bargaining agreement. This is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction to this Court.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a counterclaim that requires interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement under the Labor Management Relations Act.

Carbon Fuel Co. v. USX Corp. · filed 1994-11-04

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the USX Defendants’ counterclaim through federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction because this case involves the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement.

Section 1331 supplies the federal-question jurisdiction that a plaintiff must invoke for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Thomas v. St. Luke's Health Systems, Inc. · filed 1994-11-21

Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 require invocation of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides no continuing federal-question jurisdiction when the sole federal claim is dismissed.

Watters v. Breja · filed 2024-01-18

After considering the issue, the Court concludes that the dismissal of Plaintiff’s CFAA claim – his only federal cause of action – extinguishes the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over the remaining claims when the only asserted federal claim is no longer in the case.

Grande v. Ludlow Health Center · filed 2023-12-12

LHC is no longer a party to this case. As a result, there is no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides no remaining basis for jurisdiction when the sole federal claims are dismissed and no other jurisdictional basis is suggested.

Segall v. Rapkin · filed 1995-02-06

Since this court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is based solely on the plaintiffs’ dismissed claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 4001 and no basis for exercising pendant or supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 has been suggested, no jurisdiction remains.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over remaining state claims when the only federal claim is dismissed and no federal defense completely preempts those claims.

Thaxton v. International Brotherhood of Painters · filed 1996-07-19

Because Plaintiff is dismissing voluntarily the only federal claim appearing on the face of the complaint and because Defendant has not asserted a federal defense that totally pre-empts Plaintiffs state claim, there are no federal questions at issue sufficient to support removal.

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

Faulkner v. United States · filed 1999-02-25

The Court of Federal Claims does not have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over a remaining state-law equitable recission claim when no valid federal claim remains.

Walker v. Michael W. Colton Trust · filed 1999-04-19

This Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction in the instant case is premised solely upon the existence of a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. There is no diversity of the parties, both plaintiff and defendants being residents of Michigan. Since the Court has concluded that plaintiff has no valid claims grounded in federal law, no subject-matter jurisdiction exists to hear plaintiffs remaining claim for equitable recission.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction after all federal-law claims are dismissed with prejudice for inadequate pleading.

Sheldon v. Vermonty · filed 1999-05-25

Because plaintiff has failed to adequately plead violations under federal law, such that his claims thereunder are dismissed with prejudice, no federal question jurisdiction exists in this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over the remaining issues when dismissal of the federal claim leaves no federal question to decide.

Herbil Holding Co. v. Brook · filed 2000-02-14

This Court finds that the Brooks fail to state any cognizable claim for relief under Section 1983, and therefore there are no federal questions that remain to be decided in this case. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining issues, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and at this relatively early ’stage, the case is remanded ... back to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings on the original action.

Section 1331 does not give the United States Court of Federal Claims federal-question jurisdiction.

Callahan v. United States · filed 2001-06-14

This Court does not have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor does it have jurisdiction to grant equitable relief for property that was forfeited unconstitutionally.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction on United States District Courts, not the Court of Federal Claims.

Taylor v. United States · filed 2001-06-18

Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1346 concern the jurisdiction of United States District Courts and not that of this court.

Section 1331 no longer provides federal-question jurisdiction when the federal claims have been dismissed.

Winters v. Investment Savings Plan for Employees of Knight-Ridder, Inc. · filed 2001-08-13

As this Court will order the dismissal of plaintiffs federal claims under ERISA, this case is no longer proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the basis of jurisdiction plaintiff relies upon in his Amended Complaint.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a non-frivolous claim under federal law.

Corel Corp. v. United States · filed 2001-09-17

Under these circumstances, jurisdiction is proper under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491. ... Here, Corel has alleged violations of CICA and injury under the APA. These allegations are sufficient to establish federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a properly pleaded federal claim is not retroactively lost when that claim is dismissed.

Olcott v. Delaware Flood Co. · filed 2003-04-24

The district court had original subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and over the state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Dismissal of a properly pled federal claim does not retroactively deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 ends when the federal claims supporting it are dismissed.

Mason v. Morrisette · filed 2004-05-26

Because the federal claims are dismissed, federal guestion jurisdiction no longer exists in this case.

Section 1331 does not support jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the federal claims supplying the federal question have been dismissed and no other jurisdictional basis is alleged.

Johnson v. Lyddane · filed 2005-05-13

Plaintiffs allege federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in paragraph two of the First Amended Complaint and allege no other basis for jurisdiction in this Court. Since the Court has dismissed the claims that serve as the basis for the federal question jurisdiction, i.e., the § 1983 claims, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case.

Section 1331 does not sustain federal-question jurisdiction over remaining claims after dismissal of the only claims alleging violations of federal law.

Golan v. Puleo · filed 2007-03-30

Jurisdiction, which was asserted through removal of this case from state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 78aa, as the claims brought against PetMed allegedly arise under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder does not survive the dismissal of the only two claims which alleged violations of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the only federal claim is dismissed.

Pena v. A. Anderson Scott Mortgage Group, Inc. · filed 2010-03-11

The Court has dismissed plaintiffs TILA claim, and no other federal claims were filed. As such, the Court no longer has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and may dismiss the case, remand it to D.C. Superior Court, or exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1331 jurisdiction abates when the federal claims have been dismissed.

Dodson v. UNIVERSITY OF ARK. FOR MED. SCIENCES · filed 2010-04-02

With Count I properly dismissed, there are no federal claims in this case and jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 abates.

Jurisdiction under § 1331 abates when all federal claims have been dismissed.

Dodson v. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences ex rel. University of Arkansas System Board of Trustees · filed 2010-04-02

With Count I properly dismissed, there are no federal claims in this case and jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 abates.

Section 1331 jurisdiction remains after dismissal of a section 1983 claim when claims under the FDCPA and RESPA remain pending.

Coleman v. Bank of New York Mellon · filed 2013-09-04

Because some of Plaintiff s remaining claims arise under federal law, she has carried her burden to establish that federal question jurisdiction exists over this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the sole federal claim is dismissed.

Rossi v. Quarmley · filed 2014-03-25

Because I determined that the sole federal claim must be dismissed, the only' remaining claims sound in state law. Therefore, there is no federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Pennie v. Obama · filed 2017-06-02

As already stated, given the court’s dismissal of Counts One, Two, and Three, the sole federal claims, -federal question jurisdiction is lacking under Section 1331.

Section 1331 provides original jurisdiction over federal claims; dismissal of those claims divests the court of federal-question jurisdiction over the action.

Ventura v. Massachusetts General Hospital · filed 2019-07-25

Because Ventura’s federal claims fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, dismissal of these claim would divest the Court of original subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction for federal statutory claims; once those claims are dismissed, it provides no federal-question basis for the remaining state-law claims.

Bolin v. HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. · filed 2019-09-24

The Court originally had subject matter jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because several of Plaintiffs’ claims in the Amended Complaint were brought under federal statutes.!_ The Court’s Order of March 5, 2018, however, dismissed the claims brought under federal law. (ECF No. 101) Accordingly, the Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction based on a federal question and need not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over pleaded federal claims is not undone by a later ruling that those claims are preempted.

CHASE v. MERSON · filed 2019-10-22

At the time of my ruling, the plaintiff had pleaded substantive federal RICO claims. I had jurisdiction to rule on those federal claims and thus had subject matter jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims. Although eventually I decided that the PSLRA preempted the RICO claims, that does not vitiate my earlier federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction abates when the sole federal claim is dismissed.

Oliphant v. Midland Funding LLC · filed 2020-02-20

Because I am dismissing the sole federal count in Plaintiffs’ complaint, “there are no federal claims in this case and jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 abates.”

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction, which the court found no longer existed after all federal claims were dismissed.

FORD v. BASS AND ASSOCIATES · filed 2020-02-27

In this case, while the Court had original jurisdiction by virtue of the federal questions raised in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, all federal claims have been dismissed. See section I, supra. Therefore, the Court finds federal original jurisdiction no longer exists.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the federal claims have been dismissed with prejudice.

Golub v. Northeastern University · filed 2020-06-10

Where the Court has previously dismissed those claims with prejudice, however, it does not have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 no longer supplies original federal-question jurisdiction after all federal claims have been dismissed.

LOWE v. CSENGE ADVISORY GROUP · filed 2020-09-29

The Court no longer has original subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because all of Lowe’s federal claims have been dismissed.

Section 1331 no longer supplies original jurisdiction when both federal claims are dismissed.

Adler v. Loyd · filed 2020-10-14

The Court no longer has original jurisdiction here. Plaintiffs relied on the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, to establish jurisdiction. See Am. Compl. ¶ 10. But that no longer applies because both federal claims will be dismissed.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over Lanham Act claims, but no independent jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are voluntarily dismissed.

ILOVE305 I,LLC v. Cafe Americano Ocean, LLC · filed 2021-06-30

Rather than file a response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with respect to the Lanham Act claims (Counts I, II, and III), the only claims asserted based upon federal question jurisdiction. ... As such, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction after the plaintiff’s constitutional claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Wright v. American Legion Department of Oklahoma, Inc. · filed 2021-07-14

However, as discussed above, the Court is dismissing plaintiff’s constitutional claims against defendant for failure to state a claim. Thus, plaintiff can no longer properly invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 no longer supports an asserted federal-question jurisdiction basis once the pleaded federal claims have been dismissed.

Foley Industries, Inc. v. Nelson · filed 2021-11-30

With the dismissal of Counts II and III under the CFAA and SCA respectively, Plaintiff’s assertion of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 no longer stands.

Section 1331 provides no remaining federal-question basis for jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed.

O. v. Connor · filed 2022-06-21

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s conspiracy and Lanham Act claims, there is no longer a federal question basis for this Court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a case raises a federal claim; the remaining state-law claims did not provide that jurisdiction after the only federal claim was dismissed.

Weese v. Target · filed 2022-08-31

Federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as well those “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States” under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). ... Here, Weese asserts no other causes of action under federal law. ... As no grounds for this Court’s jurisdiction remain, the Court will remand this action back to the District Court for Calvert County for resolution of the final two claims (Counts II & III).

Section 1331 no longer supplies an original federal-question basis when the federal claims are dismissed and only state-law claims remain.

Burgess v. Johnson · filed 2022-10-11

In addition, the Court considers whether it has an alternative basis for original subject matter jurisdiction now that § 1331 is no longer applicable.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims after the sole federal constitutional claim is dismissed.

Waugh v. Weinhoeft · filed 2022-11-23

Upon the dismissal of Count 1, no federal constitutional claims will remain in this action that would confer jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which was the basis for removal to this Court.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over EPA and Title VII claims; the court held that this jurisdiction did not continue after it dismissed all federal claims.

Presnell v. Sharp Electronics Corporation · filed 2022-12-14

In this action, Plaintiff's claims of unlawful discrimination under the EPA and Title VII raise Federal questions. However, if the Court finds that Plaintiff's federal claims cannot proceed – as it has done above – then federal question jurisdiction is lacking, and the court may also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims.

When the only federal-question claim is dismissed, § 1331 no longer provides a basis for keeping the remaining claims in federal court.

GORDON v. PASQUARELLO · filed 2023-03-14

Plaintiff’s allegation of a RICO violation is the only federal question presented in this matter. This claim is being dismissed. Accordingly, the only available alternative for Plaintiff’s case to remain in federal court is diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over the remaining claims when both federal causes of action have been dismissed.

Stanz v. Brown · filed 2023-06-08

Because the Court has dismissed both of Plaintiff’s federal causes of action, subject matter jurisdiction cannot exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides no remaining basis for federal-question jurisdiction when all federal claims have been dismissed.

LOPEZ v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC · filed 2023-08-11

It follows that there is no longer a basis for federal-question jurisdiction, because there is no federal claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when no federal claims remain.

Fan v. Jiang · filed 2023-09-09

This Court does not have jurisdiction over the case because Fan invoked jurisdiction under federal law and there are no federal claims remaining.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction, which the court found unavailable after dismissing the sole federal claim.

Radzinskaia v. NH Mountain, LP · filed 2023-09-29

However, having determined Count IV must be dismissed, the Court lacks jurisdiction based on a specific statutory grant and on a federal question.

Section 1331 does not supply federal question jurisdiction after the only asserted federal claim is dismissed.

Butler v. Sazerac Company Fireball Manufacturer · filed 2023-11-17

Given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim (see supra), federal question subject matter jurisdiction does not lie in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides no subject matter jurisdiction when no federal cause of action remains.

Zavada v. Mehbizar, Inc. · filed 2024-02-23

Without a remaining federal cause of action, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, and this action is dismissed in entirely without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over federal-law claims remains after the removing defendant is dismissed.

Gomez v. NTX Auto Group, Incorporated · filed 2024-03-06

Those claims – which Gomez has also pleaded against NTX in Plaintiff’s Original Petition – “are treated as arising under federal law; therefore, the [Court] has original subject matter jurisdiction of this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331,” regardless of the removing defendant’s dismissal. Buchner, 981 F.2d at 819.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction once the sole federal claim has been dismissed.

Maehren v. City of Kirkland · filed 2024-07-08

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim, the Court no longer has jurisdiction based on a federal question, and no diversity jurisdiction exists in this case.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when dismissal of the federal defendant leaves only state-law claims.

NASIM v. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORPORATION · filed 2024-07-09

The Court agrees that there is no subject matter jurisdiction under Sections 1331 or 1349 now that Amtrak has been dismissed and the only claims are state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the sole federal claim is dismissed.

Stephens v. Brown Wood Preserving Company, Inc. · filed 2025-03-03

Because all federal claims will be dismissed, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and must determine whether to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over Stephens’ remaining state law claims against Koppers, SFH Industries, and Brown Wood, or remand them back to state court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed as time-barred.

WEBB, III v. DIVERSEGY, LLC · filed 2025-08-21

Given that Plaintiff’s federal claims are barred by the statute of limitations and statute of repose, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction ends in a removed case when the federal-law claims supporting removal are dismissed, leaving only state-law claims.

Porter · filed 2025-10-15

In light of this finding, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to amend as moot and concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over federal law claims but does not itself provide jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after those claims are dismissed.

Anthony · filed 2025-10-21

Federal question jurisdiction applies only to the federal law claims, which are now dismissed.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction ends when a joint stipulation removes all federal claims from the operative complaint in a removed case.

Walker v. State of Arizona · filed 2025-10-22

Walker invoked federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for his federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for his state law claims. ... Although the parties’ stipulation did not cite any Rule, it functionally amended Walker’s complaint to remove all remaining claims and, in doing so, removed the only source of federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no continuing federal-question jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Marquez v. Republic National Distributing Company · filed 2026-01-21

Because Defendant’s removal was on the basis of federal question jurisdiction and the federal claims have been dismissed, there is no longer any basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts federal-question jurisdiction over suits by or against Amtrak.

Wyant v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. · filed 1995-04-07

Amtrak is correct that the law is well-settled that federal courts have federal question jurisdiction over suits by or against Amtrak under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over suits against Amtrak because it is a congressionally established corporation whose stock is majority owned by the United States.

Bak v. Metro-North Railroad · filed 2015-04-16

Plaintiff is correct in arguing that a suit against Amtrak invokes federal question jurisdiction. ... Since the United States owns more than 50% of Amtrak stock, federal courts have clear jurisdiction in lawsuits where Amtrak is a party.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a citizen’s action against a state that has not consented to suit.

Gambocz v. Sub-Committee on Claims of the Joint Legislative Appropriations Committee, New Jersey Legislature and · filed 1970-03-26

New Jersey has not so consented. It follows that the district court correctly held that it was without jurisdiction to entertain this action against the State of New Jersey under either the Civil Rights Act or the federal question statute.

Section 1331(a) gives district courts jurisdiction over a Takings Clause claim seeking declaratory relief without a prior claim for compensation in the Court of Federal Claims.

In Re Chateaugay Corporation · filed 1995-04-17(a)

We agree with the district court that its exercise of jurisdiction over LTV's Takings Clause claim was proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331(a). We find no merit to the government's suggestion that the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1491(a), acts to remove from the federal district courts jurisdiction over an action for declaratory relief where no money damages have been requested.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a Takings Clause claim seeking only declaratory relief.

LTV Steel Co. v. Shalala · filed 1995-04-17

We agree with the district court that its exercise of jurisdiction over LTV’s Takings Clause claim was proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... In any event, our jurisdiction over this case is proper in light of the fact that LTV seeks only declaratory relief on its takings claim.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction over an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from state regulation on federal preemption grounds.

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC v. Smith · filed 2007-01-23

In sum, the Complaint seeks both declaratory and injunctive relief on grounds of preemption. This type of action is sufficient to support federal question jurisdiction under Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983), and Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 535 U.S. 635, 122 S.Ct. 1753, 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002).

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over immigration selective-enforcement claims when the INA’s exclusive court-of-appeals review procedure does not apply.

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Reno · filed 1995-11-08

When the provision for exclusive review in the courts of appeals is inapplicable, jurisdiction lies in the district court pursuant to the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and pursuant to the general grant of power to review matters arising under the immigration laws, 8 U.S.C. § 1329.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over federal challenges to agency action even when the action is committed to agency discretion and the APA supplies no cause of action.

Oryszak v. Sullivan · filed 2009-08-14

That a plaintiff complains about an action that is committed to agency discretion by law does not mean his case is not a “civil action[] arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It does not mean, therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 places any available general federal-question jurisdiction for nonstatutory review of agency action in district court.

In Re Sutton · filed 2011-06-14

So-called “nonstatutory” judicial review, based on the Administrative Procedure Act and a general grant of jurisdiction such as 28 U.S.C. § 1331, when available, is in the district court.

Section 1331 permits district courts to hear collateral constitutional challenges to SEC administrative proceedings when Congress has not shown an intent to make agency review exclusive.

Gray Financial Group, Inc. v. Securities & Exchange Commission · filed 2015-08-04

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 Plaintiffs from raising their collateral constitutional claims in the district court.

Section 1331 permits district courts to hear collateral constitutional challenges to SEC administrative proceedings when Congress has not made the administrative review scheme exclusive.

Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. v. Securities & Exchange Commission · filed 2015-11-17

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 Plaintiffs from raising their collateral constitutional claims in the district court.

Section 1331 generally gives district courts original jurisdiction to review agency action.

Levine v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · filed 2017-03-27

Rather, jurisdiction is derived from 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which generally confers original jurisdiction in the district courts to review agency action.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a motion to obtain a court reporter’s backup audio recordings of a criminal trial.

United States v. Moreno · filed 2019-10-25

But § 1331 did not provide the district court jurisdiction to proceed with this case.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a benefits-coverage dispute governed by ERISA, including a dispute about COBRA continuation coverage.

Mattive v. Healthsource of Savannah, Inc. · filed 1995-06-23

The Court now independently considers whether it has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Because ERISA governs Plaintiffs dispute regarding coverage under her continuation of coverage policy, this Court finds that its federal question jurisdiction of the above-captioned matter is proper.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim alleging a violation of Title VII.

Banks v. Chicago Board of Education · filed 1995-07-21

Count I alleging violation of Title VII is jurisdictionally sufficient as a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Federal-question jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous Title VII claim does not require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant qualifies as an employer; employer status goes to the merits.

Brown v. Mesirow Stein Real Estate, Inc. · filed 1998-06-19

On April 20,1998, the court concluded that Plaintiff was not required to show that Mesirow Stein qualified as her employer for subject matter jurisdiction to exist, and converted Defendants’ 12(b)(1) motion into a 12(b)(6) motion.

Section 1331 gives a court federal-question jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous Title VII claim even when the defendant’s status as a covered employer remains unresolved.

Dean v. American Federation of Government Employees Local 476 · filed 2005-08-29

As in St. Francis Xavier, “[b]ecause the claim arises under the laws of the United States and is neither immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction not wholly insubstantial and frivolous, the district court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”

Section 1331 does not make Title VII’s 15-employee minimum a requirement for federal-question jurisdiction.

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. · filed 2006-02-22

But neither §1331, nor Title VII’s jurisdictional provision, 42 U. S. C. §2000e–5(f)(3) (authorizing jurisdiction over ac- tions “brought under” Title VII), specifies any threshold ingredient akin to 28 U. S. C. §1332’s monetary floor.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a Title VII claim solely for attorney’s fees because federal law creates the claim.

Ballard v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. · filed 2011-10-26

28 U.S.C. § 1331 broadly grants district courts the power to hear all cases involving federal questions. This includes all cases in which federal law creates the cause of action. ... Accordingly, such a claim, born and sanctioned by federal law, is appropriate in federal court under § 1331.

A complaint alleging a Title VII violation establishes federal-question jurisdiction even before the plaintiff obtains an EEOC right-to-sue letter.

Spencer v. Duncaster, Inc. · filed 2014-10-15

In this federal-question case, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it was plain from the start that plaintiffs allegation of a federal Title VII claim sufficed to create federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a Title VII cause of action appears on the face of the complaint.

Calkins v. Williams · filed 2021-09-30

The court had jurisdiction over Calkins’ claims because his allegations for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act appear on the face of his Complaint, and Title VII provides a cause of action created by federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a Title VII retaliation claim because it arises under federal law.

Coleman v. Office of The State Auditor · filed 2022-05-18

Coleman expressly invokes Title VII in Count Four and appears to assert a retaliation claim under that federal statute. ... Jurisdiction exists via Title VII.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a Title VII claim brought under federal law.

Holmes v. MVM, Inc. · filed 2023-01-04

Nor could he reasonably do so based upon his Title VII claim brought pursuant to federal law. Based on that claim, this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a case bringing Title VII claims.

Howard v. Proviso Township H.S. District 209 · filed 2023-01-23

The Court has federal-question jurisdiction over this case because Howard brings claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over Title VII claims even when a complaint does not allege an EEOC charge or attach a right-to-sue letter.

Reid v. Hard Rock Casino · filed 2025-07-18

As a general matter, of course, Title VII claims fall within the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The Court disagrees with the R&R’s conclusion that such failures create jurisdictional concerns.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over a complaint asserting a Title VII claim.

Lawrence v. Bonaventure of Castle Rock · filed 2026-01-02

The district court had not only an arguable, but an indisputably legitimate, basis for exercising jurisdiction over Mr. Lawrence’s complaint. Specifically, the district court had original jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(3) because Mr. Lawrence asserted a claim for relief under Title VII.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction over TVPA claims, so a failure to plead their elements is addressed under Rule 12(b)(6) rather than Rule 12(b)(1).

Garcia v. Chapman · filed 2012-11-28

Where, as here, subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C. section 1331, “relief from a complaint that fails to sufficiently plead the elements of a TVPA claim should be raised in a motion filed under Rule 12(b)(6), rather than 12(b)(1).”

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over Torture Victim Protection Act claims brought by United States citizens.

Estate of Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios · filed 2001-08-10

Pursuant to § 1331, therefore, United States citizens have standing to vindicate their rights under the TVPA.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over claims of official torture brought under the Torture Victim Protection Act.

Kadic v. Karadžić · filed 1995-10-13

The Torture Victim Act permits the appellants to pursue their claims of official torture under the jurisdiction conferred by the Alien Tort Act and also under the general federal question jurisdiction of section 1331, see Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F.Supp. 162, 178 (D.Mass.1995), to which we now turn.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims of official torture under the Torture Victim Protection Act.

Kadic v. Karadžić · filed 1996-01-06

The Torture Victim Act permits the appellants to pursue their claims of official torture under the jurisdiction conferred by the Alien Tort Act and also under the general federal question jurisdiction of section 1331, see Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F.Supp. 162, 178 (D.Mass.1995), to which we now turn.

Section 1331 can independently provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim under the Torture Victim Protection Act.

Arar v. Ashcroft · filed 2006-02-16

This ambiguity notwithstanding, there is no proscription against basing Torture Victim Protection Act claims exclusively under § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over claims under the Torture Victim Protection Act.

Boniface v. Viliena · filed 2018-08-31

Thus, in this case, the Court ...may exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' TVPA claims through section 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal subject matter jurisdiction over claims under the Torture Victim Protection Act independently of the Alien Tort Statute.

Boniface v. Viliena · filed 2019-09-30

Accordingly, secure in its assessment that it was not a clear error of law to adopt the majority approach and to exercise jurisdiction over the TVPA claims through § 1331, the Court proceeds to consider the second, related issue of whether the Constitution limits the exercise of such jurisdiction in situations where the TVPA claims “concern only parties who are aliens and do not touch and concern the territory of the United States.”3 See [ECF No. 67 at 2].

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over tort claims against the United States; the Federal Torts Claims Act supplies the exclusive jurisdictional basis.

Moore v. United States Postal Service · filed 1996-01-04

Although Moore cites 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 as the jurisdictional basis of her "personal injury" claim, it is the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346(b), 2671-2680 (1988), that provides the exclusive jurisdictional basis for tort claims against the United States.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over Bivens claims, but a claim against the United States also requires its consent to suit.

Rutledge,et al v. USA,et al · filed 1998-10-05

Rutledge correctly notes that Section 1331 provides a district court with subject matter jurisdiction over Bivens claims. Nevertheless, the district court lacked jurisdiction over the Bivens claims. ... For jurisdiction to be proper in such an action, the United States must have consented.

Section 1331 permits district court jurisdiction over a federal-question suit against the United States regardless of the amount in controversy when another statute waives sovereign immunity.

D.C. Precision, Inc. v. United States Government · filed 1999-06-29

Rather, under the law of this circuit, “regardless of the amount in controversy, an action in district court is proper under the federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, if a statute other than the Tucker Act provides the necessary waiver of sovereign immunity.” Ward, 22 F.3d at 519 (citation omitted).

Section 1331’s general grant of federal-question jurisdiction does not supply jurisdiction over tort claims against the United States; the FTCA does.

Asarkasaamsu v. United States · filed 2024-11-14

For tort claims against the United States, the FTCA itself, not the general grant of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.SC. § 1332, is the source of a federal court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331(a), together with 5 U.S.C. § 702, provides jurisdiction over claims seeking nonmonetary relief against the United States.

Medina v. United States · filed 1982-06-23(a)

Jurisdiction against the United States for nonmonetary relief, however, has been found to exist under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331(a), as amended, and 5 U.S.C. Sec. 702.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, but a claim against the United States for more than $10,000 based on an implied statutory right to money damages belongs in the Court of Claims.

Pierre v. United States · filed 1990-07-11

United States District Courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the ... laws ... of the United States”, including, of course, acts of Congress. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... For the following reasons, however, it is my opinion that plaintiffs' claim under the NHA and the LBPPPA comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.

Section 1331 permits district court jurisdiction over a federal claim against the United States regardless of the amount in controversy when another statute waives sovereign immunity.

Ward v. Brown · filed 1994-05-02

In addressing the scope of the Tucker Act in C.H. Sanders, we held that regardless of the amount in controversy, an action in a district court is proper under the federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, if a statute other than the Tucker Act provides the necessary waiver of sovereign immunity. See C.H. Sanders, 903 F.2d at 119. Thus, although an action could have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act, a district court has jurisdiction over the case so long as there is both a grant of subject matter jurisdiction and an independent waiver of sovereign immunity exists.

Section 1331 does not permit a district court to retain a nonmonetary claim against the United States when the relief has no value apart from a monetary claim within the Claims Court’s exclusive jurisdiction.

Francis E. Heydt Company v. United States of America, and Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense, United States Department · filed 1991-11-04

Although the Gratuities Act served as the basis of federal question jurisdiction, the Company’s right to recover derives from the contract itself. ... Consequently, under these circumstances, the equitable relief sought did not have any “significant prospective effect” or “considerable value” apart from the claim for monetary relief. ... Not only was the district court without jurisdiction to resolve the controversy between the parties, but in this case, its equitable relief was hollow.

Section 1331(a) does not give district courts jurisdiction over a contract claim against the United States exceeding $10,000.

Up State Federal Credit Union v. Walker · filed 1999-02-09(a)

Plaintiffs claim, in essence, is a contract claim against the United States with the amount in controversy exceeding $10,000. Such a claim is not within the court’s jurisdiction under § 1331(a).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a constitutional claim for injunctive relief against a federal officer in her official capacity.

Pinson v. Othon · filed 2020-10-26

In short, Plaintiff sufficiently states a claim under § 1331 against von Blanckensee in her official capacity for injunctive relief for violations of federal constitutional law.

Section 1331 permits plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief against federal agencies and federal officials.

Benetti v. United States Marshalls · filed 2023-08-24

A plaintiff may seek injunctive relief against federal agencies and federal officials under § 1331.

A claim for injunctive relief under § 1331 must be brought against officials who can carry out the requested relief, in their official capacities.

Phillips v. Moore · filed 2023-10-04

Because Mr. Phillips has not made a claim for injunctive relief under § 1331 in a pleading, Mr. Phillips may file an amended complaint asserting only claims for injunctive relief under § 1331 against defendants who would be responsible for carrying out any order for injunctive relief. The § 1331 claim must be against those defendants in their official capacities.

Section 1331 permits a prisoner to seek injunctive relief against the Bureau of Prisons for alleged unconstitutional conduct.

Pinson v. Carvajal · filed 2024-02-13

However, she can still seek injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over an interstate carrier’s action to collect unpaid freight charges governed by federal law.

United Van Lines, Inc. v. Hellman · filed 1996-03-21

There are at least two jurisdictional grants by Congress to the federal courts that are germane to this case: (1) 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers jurisdiction to the federal district courts of all “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the United States.”; and (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a) confers jurisdiction to the federal district courts of all actions arising under federal law regulating interstate commerce, including interstate carrier claims for freight charges. ... Because this litigation arises under federal law in the most fundaméntal way, this Court has jurisdiction to hear this ease.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over contests concerning elections to the U.S. House of Representatives, which are reserved to the House.

Lyons v. Van Hilleary · filed 1996-03-25

Here, Lyons simply cannot establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... The Constitution and applicable federal law clearly vest authority over federal election contests, regardless of form or subject matter, in the House of Representatives.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction that permits an order for injunctive relief requiring an agency hearing, even when the complaint does not request a remand.

Connecticut v. Duncan · filed 2010-07-13

Here, in contrast, the District Court’s jurisdiction was original, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and not appellate. ... Accordingly, it is of no moment that the complaint never used the word “remand,” as the District Court’s original jurisdiction would have allowed it to order injunctive relief requiring a hearing on the plan amendments.

Section 1331 grants only original jurisdiction over civil actions and does not authorize appellate review of state administrative decisions.

International College of Surgeons v. City of Chicago · filed 1996-08-01

We note, however, that 28 U.S.C. § 1331, like the diversity statute, confers only "original jurisdiction of ... civil actions.”

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a suit requiring interpretation and application of the IGRA.

Diamond Game Enterprises, Inc. v. Reno · filed 1998-06-23

The controversy in the instant case invites this court’s interpretation and application of the IGRA, a federal statute within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Consequently, the court resolves the jurisdictional issue in favor of the plaintiffs.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over a civil action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Young v. Williams · filed 2010-08-30

Contrary to Young’s contention, the district court had jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state civil conspiracy claim merely because the alleged conspiracy was to violate federal law.

In Re Orthopedic Bone Screw Products Liability Litigation · filed 1996-08-06

Civil conspiracy is a state law claim. This court does not believe that merely alleging that the conspiracy was to violate a federal law converts a state claim to a federal claim.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law.

Bell v. Mid-Century Insurance · filed 2004-04-21

The district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it was not a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or between citizens of different states, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; nor did the complaint allege a civil rights violation, see 28 U.S.C. § 1343, or other basis for the district court’s jurisdiction.