28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a civil action that does not arise under federal law.

Bell v. Erwin · filed 2007-11-06

The district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is not a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; nor does the complaint allege any other basis for the district court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to suggest a civil action arising under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Bell-Boston v. Sibley Memorial Hospital · filed 2008-09-24

The district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because nothing in appellant’s complaint suggests she is pursuing a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; nor does the complaint allege any other basis for the district court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a civil claim merely because the alleged conduct led to a federal criminal conviction.

Wright v. Shell Gas Station · filed 2022-08-11

But the crimes of 7 || which Mr. Williams was convicted do not make the plaintiffs claims federal ones. Nor do the 8 criminal statutes provide private rights of action or convey jurisdiction in civil actions.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims based on a tribal constitution or bylaws.

Deardorff v. Lummi Indian Nation · filed 1996-08-08

First, the Lummi Constitution and its bylaws do not "arise under" the United States Constitution or statutes and are insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over disputes concerning the enforceability of an IGRA gaming compact or the parties’ obligations without an enforceable amendment.

Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation · filed 2005-12-08

The relevant jurisdictional issue is whether the Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 of a dispute between these parties over the enforceability of the compact or the obligations of the parties in the absence of an enforceable compact amendment. It does: ... This Court has original jurisdiction over the underlying dispute which is the subject of arbitration and accordingly has jurisdiction to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

FRATO, JR. v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES L.P. · filed 2024-04-29

In short, Plaintiff correctly notes that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as his Complaint brings claims under the TCPA.

Section 1331 treats an action as arising under federal law when a compulsory counterclaim raises a substantial federal question, even if the original pleading does not.

Berckeley Investment Group, Ltd. v. Colkitt · filed 1997-12-18

From the foregoing, we conclude that a ease “arises under” federal law when a pleading, whether or not the original pleading, sets forth a claim involving a substantial question of federal law. ... In short, we conclude that a compulsory counterclaim under Chapter 2B is part of the same case or controversy and therefore the same action asserted in the complaint. It follows that the action “arises under” federal law for purposes of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the only federal claim appears in a counterclaim.

Williamsburg Plantation, Inc. v. Bluegreen Corp. · filed 2006-11-02

The only federal question in the present case is the FLSA counterclaim. Under the clear rule of Holmes Group, this cannot serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot rest on a federal claim raised only in a counterclaim.

Massad v. Greaves · filed 2008-04-07

As well, federal claims raised in counterclaims “cannot serve as the basis for ‘arising under’ jurisdiction,” Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., 535 U.S. 826, 831, 122 S.Ct. 1889, 153 L.Ed.2d 13 (2002) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (alteration in original).

Section 1331 does not permit federal-question jurisdiction to rest on a counterclaim, even one governed exclusively by federal law.

Vaden v. Discover Bank · filed 2009-03-09

Under our precedent construing §1331, as just explained, counterclaims, even if they rely exclusively on federal substantive law, do not qualify a case for federal court cognizance.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a federal claim raised only in the defendant’s counterclaim.

Bi Solutions, LLC v. Campbell · filed 2009-08-07

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal statutes. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff’s claims here all arise under state law or common law. Defendant raises a federal claim in his First Amended Counterclaim, see Def.’s Notice, Ex. 3, but “a counterclaim – which appears as part of the defendant's answer, not as part of the plaintiff’s complaint – cannot serve as the basis for ‘arising under’ jurisdiction.” Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002). Thus, there is no federal question jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot rest on a defendant’s proposed counterclaims when the state-court pleading raises no federal issue.

Choctaw City of v. Edwards · filed 2021-10-25

Defendant’s recitation of intended counterclaims provides no basis for removal to this Court.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a defendant’s federal counterclaim does not suffice.

R4U Ventures LLC v. Hovik · filed 2022-04-06

And even if federal courts did have exclusive jurisdiction over civil RICO claims, this would still not permit Defendants to remove on the basis of a counterclaim.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot be established by a defendant’s federal counterclaim.

Waters v. Rockett · filed 2024-03-18

Regardless, even if Rockett intends to assert a counterclaim against Waters under either of the FDCPA or FCRA, such a counterclaim cannot serve as a basis to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not permit a defendant’s federal counterclaims to establish federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint raises no federal claim.

Williams Assets, LLC v. Garvey · filed 2024-08-29

But Plaintiff’s complaint did not allege that Defendants violated the CRA or the federal Constitution. Instead, Garvey’s notice of removal alleges counterclaims against Plaintiffs under those provisions. This is insufficient to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not allow a counterclaim to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

The People of The State of New York v. Amelio · filed 2025-04-16

It is well- settled that a counterclaim cannot serve as the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction cannot rest on an actual or anticipated counterclaim, even one based entirely on federal law.

Amelio · filed 2026-06-26

Second, Mr. Amelio argues that his counterclaim provides subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. But, notwithstanding Mr. Amelio's assertions to the contrary, “federal jurisdiction [cannot] rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). Indeed, “counterclaims, even if they rely exclusively on federal substantive law, do not qualify a case for federal-court cognizance.” Id. at 62.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a claim pleaded under state law when the artful pleading doctrine shows that the claim is inherently federal, including a suit for a tax refund governed exclusively by federal law.

Brennan v. Southwest Airlines Co. · filed 1998-01-28

However, the artful pleading doctrine creates an exception to this general rule. Artful pleading exists where a plaintiff articulates an inherently federal claim in state-law terms. ... Because Plaintiffs in this case have sued for a tax refund, the district court had jurisdiction under the artful pleading doctrine and it properly denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint omits reference to federal law but the claims necessarily depend on that law.

Gandy v. Peoples Bank and Trust Co. · filed 1998-05-29

The mere failure to make specific reference in a complaint to a federal statute or other source of federal law is not enough to prevent removal or federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint framed in state law when federal law preempts its claims and the artful pleading doctrine applies.

Thrasher v. Cardholder Services · filed 1999-11-05

Because Plaintiffs state common law causes of action are preempted by the FDCPA, the artful pleading doctrine applies. The Court accordingly finds that the complaint presents a federal question. Removal on federal question grounds was, therefore, proper, and Plaintiffs Motion to Remand is accordingly denied.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint deliberately omits federal claims that are its true basis.

Hall v. City of Alexandria · filed 2000-06-02

We conclude that Hall’s failure to plead his federal claims was purposeful and was an attempt to conceal the fact that his claims are truly federal in nature. ... The removing defendants are correct that this court has original jurisdiction over the present case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441, since Hall’s action is based upon a claim or right arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not permit removal under the artful pleading doctrine when viable state-law misrepresentation claims can be resolved without necessarily construing federal law.

Brown v. Vickers Employees Credit Union · filed 2001-09-05

The Plaintiff can clearly maintain a cause of action for fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation without the Court necessarily having to construe federal law. The Court, therefore, finds that the artful pleading doctrine has not been implicated, and that exercising removal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is not warranted.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a state contract claim actually challenges a federally approved tariff under the artful pleading doctrine.

Indeck Maine Energy, L.L.C. v. ISO New England Inc. · filed 2001-10-09

Thus, the court concludes that In-deck’s complaint arises under federal law because Indeck has sought to present a challenge to a federally-approved tariff in the guise of a state contractual claim.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a removed complaint when artful pleading obscures a substantial federal issue essential to the plaintiff’s claim.

Calf Island Community Trust, Inc. v. Young Men's Christian Assoc. of Greenwich · filed 2003-03-31

Further, removal by the YMCA and the TPL under the artful pleading doctrine is proper because the state court complaint raises an issue of federal law and the merits of the litigation turn on a substantial federal issue that is “an element and an essential one, of the plaintiffs cause of action.”

Section 1331 can support federal-question jurisdiction under the artful pleading doctrine in some circumstances even when the federal statute does not completely preempt state law.

Kudlek v. Sunoco, Inc. · filed 2009-04-16

The court reads Marcus and Sullivan as standing for the proposition that, in certain situations, a court may find federal question jurisdiction under the artful pleading doctrine even where a federal statute does not have complete preemptive effect.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a claim arises at least in part under federal law, despite a plaintiff’s attempt to obscure its federal source.

(PC) Hill v. Kernan · filed 2020-04-13

What he may not do, however, is to cloak or mislead about the source of a claim when it has become readily apparent that it arises, at least in part, under federal law.

Section 1331 does not independently provide a claim for relief.

Bullock v. Dioguardi · filed 1993-04-30

The court agrees with defendants that the second amended complaint alleges no color-able claims independently cognizable under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332 or 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1986, or 1988 and dismisses Bullock’s claims for relief under those statutes without discussion.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself provide a source of rights.

State of Illinois v. City of Chicago, Illinois, and City of Gary, Indiana · filed 1998-02-19

Illinois points to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 2201, but the former is a grant of jurisdiction and the latter of a particular remedy; neither dispenses with the need to find a source of rights.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a Lanham Act claim based on allegedly false patent infringement and licensing claims.

Minebea Co., Ltd. v. Papst · filed 1998-06-22

It appears clear to the Court that false patent infringement and licensing claims may violate the Lanham Act, and therefore this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Count VII pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide general federal-question jurisdiction over suits arising under the Medicare Act.

Faith Home Health v. Shalala · filed 1998-12-16

Because Faith Home's suit “arises under” the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395 et seq., federal courts may not exercise general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to review a Medicare Act claim that arises under that Act because 42 U. S. C. § 405(h) precludes it.

Your Home Visiting Nurse Services, Inc. v. Shalala · filed 1999-02-23

First, judicial review under the federal-question statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1331, is precluded by 42 U. S. C. § 405(h), applicable to the Medicare Act by operation of § 1S95Ü, which provides that “[n]o action against... the [Secretary] or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under section 1331... of title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this subehapter.”

Section 1331 does not give district courts jurisdiction over constitutional claims enmeshed with the government’s contractual obligations when the Tucker Acts provide the proper remedy.

Jaynes v. Johnson · filed 2003-05-22

Plaintiffs also claim that the district court had jurisdiction of their Fifth Amendment claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Because plaintiffs’ constitutional claims are enmeshed with the government’s express and implied contractual obligations, the proper remedy for the asserted constitutional claims is a suit under the Tucker Acts. ... Accordingly, the Tucker Acts divest the district court of jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claims.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over claims arising under the Medicare Act; judicial review of those claims proceeds under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Bird v. Thompson · filed 2003-07-08

Indisputably, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), “to the exclusion of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is the sole avenue for judicial review for all ‘claimfs] arising under’ the Medicare Act.” Ringer, 466 U.S. at 615, 104 S.Ct. 2013, citing Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 760-61, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975).

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over claims arising under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 when the Act’s own review scheme governs.

Global Naps, Inc. v. Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc. · filed 2003-09-30

However, this Court agrees with the other courts that have addressed this question and declined to assert jurisdiction under § 1331 for claims arising under the 1996 Act.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an action arising under the Medicare Act when the Medicare Act precludes that jurisdiction.

MARESH EX REL. MARESH v. Thompson · filed 2003-11-03

Accordingly, the instant case arises under the Medicare Act such that § 1331 jurisdiction is precluded.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over nonfrivolous claims that a state telecommunications commission failed to comply with the Telecommunications Act or FCC rulings; § 252(e)(6) does not limit that jurisdiction.

Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. Bridge · filed 2004-08-26

The Court held that § 252(e)(6) of the Act does not limit the application of § 1331. Thus, this court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction to review claims arising under the Medicare Act; § 405(g) is the exclusive avenue for judicial review.

Marsaw v. Thompson · filed 2005-05-18

Section 405(g), to the exclusion of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is the sole avenue for judicial review for all ‘claim[s] arising under’ the Medicare Act.

Section 1331 does not give district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under the Medicare Act, even when the claims also arise under other legislation, because § 405(h) bars that route to review.

New York Statewide Senior Action Council v. Leavitt · filed 2005-12-30

The statute bars all § 1331 claims “arising under” the Medicare Act, regardless of whether the claim also can be said to arise under other legislation.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under the Medicare Act because 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) excludes that route to federal court.

Fleming v. Thompson · filed 2008-01-18

Section 405(h) expressly excludes federal question jurisdiction under § 1331, and where claims arise under the Medicare Act, as they did here, no portion of those claims “can be channeled into federal court by way of federal-question jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over claims arising under the Medicare Act; judicial review must follow the Act’s administrative review procedure.

Dial v. Healthspring of Alabama, Inc. · filed 2008-08-26

This procedure for judicial review of the administrative decision of the Secretary “to the exclusion of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is the sole avenue for judicial review for all ‘claim[s] arising under’ the Medicare Act.” Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 614, 104 S. Ct. 2020 (1984). ... Even if we assume that at least one of the beneficiaries’ claims for relief arises under the Medicare Act, the district court would lack subject-matter jurisdiction over their complaint because it is not against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services for review of an administrative decision.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a Medicare Act claim when the claimant had avenues for administrative and judicial review.

Baptist Memorial Hospital v. Johnson · filed 2009-03-25

The Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a Medicare Act claim that can be heard through the administrative process and then receive judicial review.

Colorado Heart Institute, LLC v. Johnson · filed 2009-04-20

Because Plaintiffs could get their claim heard administratively and could get judicial review after administrative channeling, the Court has no Section 1331 jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over a Medicare Act claim that is not brought against the Secretary for review of an administrative decision.

Solutions Diagnostic Center, Inc. v. Pyramid Life Insurance · filed 2009-05-20

Thus, the instant action is not a case over which this Court has original jurisdiction ... pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To make this determination, the undersigned — like the Eleventh Circuit in Dial — need not address the well-pleaded complaint rule (and its narrow exception based upon complete preemption) because, even assuming one of the Plaintiffs claims (which are written as state tort claims) somehow arises under the Medicare Act, this Court would lack removal jurisdiction in any event due to the fact that the Complaint is not against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services for review of an administrative decision.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to review claims arising under the Medicare Act; judicial review proceeds under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Willowood of Great Barrington, Inc. v. Sebelius · filed 2009-07-28

Although Plaintiffs have also attempted to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that "the sole avenue for judicial review for all claims arising under the Medicare Act” is 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), "to the exclusion of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”

Section 1331 generally does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under the Medicare Act.

Kopstein v. Independence Blue Cross · filed 2009-07-29

Federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 generally is not available for claims arising under the Medicare Act.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to review claims arising under the Medicare Act because § 405(h) channels those claims through § 405(g).

Wright v. Sebelius · filed 2011-09-07

Because 42 U.S.C. § 1395Ü specifically incorporates the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) into the Medicare Act, judicial review under the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is precluded for claims arising under the Medicare Act.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over Medicare Act claims that can be channeled through the administrative review process.

Taransky v. Sebelius · filed 2013-06-12

This rule is subject to a very limited exception, under which a court may exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for claims that simply cannot be channeled through the administrative process, and in which no judicial review is available at all.

Section 1331 does not condition federal-question jurisdiction over a Lanham Act claim on proof of an effect on interstate commerce.

Just Tacos, Inc. v. Zezulak · filed 2013-07-12

Nothing in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 15 U.S.C. § 1121 “eondition[s] its jurisdictional grant” on whether a plaintiff can prove an effect on interstate commerce.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is barred for Medicare Act claims subject to administrative channeling, but remains available when channeling would foreclose all review of the claim.

Haro v. Sebelius · filed 2013-09-04

Federal question jurisdiction does not extend to most claims arising under the Medicare Act. ... Therefore, because applying § 405(h)’s channeling requirement would mean no review of Balentine’s individual claim, the claim falls within the very narrow ... and the district court had federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 to adjudicate it.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under the Medicare Act because the Act requires those claims to proceed through its administrative review process.

Popkin v. Burwell · filed 2016-03-24

First, Congress expressly precluded federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over claims “arising under” the Medicare Act. ... Plaintiffs’ claims arise under the Medicare Act and thus federal question jurisdiction is precluded at this time.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a federal trademark infringement claim, including the issue of whether the mark has secondary meaning.

B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. · filed 2018-12-21

In any event, we find that the 2000 district court had jurisdiction to consider the issue of secondary meaning. B&B does not dispute that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the 2000 court had jurisdiction over its trademark infringement claim, which arose under 15 U.S.C. § 1114. Given this unrefuted fact, B&B offers nothing to support its claim that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in that proceeding, and we therefore reject its contention.

Section 1331 does not provide original federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under the Medicare Act, which channels claims through administrative review.

Premier Inpatient Partners LLC v. Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company · filed 2019-02-15

Indeed, the plain language of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395w-22, 1395w-26 and 405 addressed by the Dial court evinces Congress's intent that the federal courts would not have original federal-question jurisdiction over all claims arising under the Medicare Act.

Section 1331 ordinarily does not provide jurisdiction over claims arising under the Medicare Act, which proceed through the judicial review channel in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Acute Care Ambulance Service, LLC v. Azar II · filed 2020-12-03

When a plaintiff brings a Medicare claim, one particular statute, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), “to the exclusion of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is the sole avenue for judicial review for all claims arising under the Medicare Act.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over Medicare Act claims that Section 405(h) channels through administrative review.

North Carolina Insurance Guaranty Association v. Azar, II · filed 2021-09-21

The plain language of Illinois Council and § 405 preclude invocation of the court’s federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in this instance.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over Lanham Act claims because they arise under federal law.

Goode v. Ramsaur · filed 2024-08-16

A claim under the Lanham Act falls within the Court’s federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over Medicare Act claims when 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides the exclusive avenue for judicial review.

SAWABINI v. Kennedy · filed 2025-03-25

Moreover, because 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides the exclusive avenue for judicial review for claims arising under the Medicare Act, and Plaintiff’s quality-of-care complaints are sufficiently arising under that Act to be covered by the scope of that statute, Plaintiff cannot pursue a federal action under the guise of federal-question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331).

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over Price-Anderson Act suits asserting public liability because they arise under federal law.

Cook v. Rockwell International Corp. · filed 2010-09-03

As a result, any suit “asserting public liability” under 42 U.S.C. § 2210 is a civil action arising under the laws of the United States over which a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides general federal-question jurisdiction but does not give a defendant an independent right to remove a state-court action.

Castrillo v. City of New York · filed 1998-09-09

What has been said thus far substantially disposes of Amtrak’s second argument, that 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1349 and 1441 and 49 U.S.C. § 24101 confer an independent right of removal upon it. Sections 1331 and 1441 are the general federal question and removal statutes and do no such thing: Section 1349, even construed in the light most favorable to Amtrak, simply creates federal jurisdiction over suits against Amtrak but does not address the circumstances in which Amtrak may remove an action commenced against it in state court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a preemption suit that asks a federal court to resolve a disputed interpretation of state regulatory law as a preliminary matter.

Fleet Bank, National Ass'n v. Burke · filed 1998-11-09

Though Fleet, like any plaintiff, may invoke federal question jurisdiction to adjudicate an unadorned claim of federal preemption, at least in a suit seeking an injunction and possibly only a declaratory judgment, it should not be accorded the opportunity to use a preemption claim as a way to force a state to adjudicate in a federal court the meaning of a state regulatory statute.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that is completely preempted by ERISA.

Funkhouser v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 2002-05-15

If a claim is completely preempted by ERISA, then the claim arises under federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a suit to enjoin enforcement of a state law allegedly preempted by federal law, even when the plaintiff does not seek to enforce that federal law.

Wright Electric, Inc. v. Minnesota State Board of Electricity · filed 2003-03-20

In contrast here, Wright Electric is not seeking enforcement of ERISA or plan terms. Rather, it is seeking to bar enforcement of a state statute. ... In Shaw, the Supreme Court explained that "[a] plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief from state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is preempted by a federal statute which, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause, must prevail, thus presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331to resolve." Id.

Section 1331 does not provide original federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the defendant argues that federal law partly preempts it.

Austin v. Metro Development Group, LLC · filed 2021-12-01

Defendants argue that Austin’s FDUTPA claim is partly preempted by federal law, but this argument does not transform the FDUTPA claim into a federal question over which the Court would have original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits district courts to hear claims that INS policies and practices deprive naturalization applicants of statutory rights.

Campos v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · filed 1998-12-09

Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ claim that local INS policies and practices deprive them of their statutory rights granted by the INA is a claim that may be maintained independently in the district court under federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction over APA claims unless Congress has specifically precluded judicial review of the agency action at issue.

CITIZENS AGAINST RUINING OUR ENVT. v. Klein · filed 2010-10-28

Although the APA does not provide an independent grant of jurisdiction to review agency action, federal question jurisdiction extends to APA claims unless Congress has specifically precluded judicial review of the particular agency action that is the subject of the claim. ... Because Congress has not expressly precluded review of the OSM decisions at issue here, I have jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over APA claims unless Congress has specifically precluded judicial review of the challenged agency action.

Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Klein · filed 2010-10-28

Although the APA does not provide an independent grant of jurisdiction to review agency action, federal question jurisdiction extends to APA claims unless Congress has specifically precluded judicial review of the particular agency action that is the subject of the claim.

Section 1331, together with the Administrative Procedure Act, gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction to review an INS visa petition revocation.

Calexico Warehouse, Inc. v. Neufeld · filed 2002-11-26

Accordingly, this Court FINDS that the APA, together with 28 U.S.C. § 1331, grants the Court subject matter jurisdiction to hear the instant case.

Section 1331, read with section 6 of the APA, provides subject matter jurisdiction over a claim that an agency has unreasonably delayed action.

Ceken v. Chertoff · filed 2008-02-12

However, section 6 of the APA, when read in conjunction with the federal question statute, does provide such basis. ... Therefore, this Court finds subject matter jurisdiction under the APA and the federal question statute and will deny defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a substantial APA claim even though the APA does not independently confer jurisdiction.

Sawan v. Chertoff · filed 2008-11-18

The APA does not provide an independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, but a district court may have subject-matter jurisdiction over APA claims under the federal-question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which states that federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of any civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... On reconsideration, this court concludes that it has subject-matter jurisdiction to decide whether Sawan has the right to relief that he claims.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction over APA challenges to BIA decisions even when the agency applies tribal law.

Alto v. Salazar · filed 2013-12-26

The federal question for § 1331 purposes is whether the BIA violated the APA; that it is claimed to have done so in a case involving application of tribal law does not matter, any more than it would matter to § 1331 jurisdiction over an APA case involving an issue of state law.

Section 1331 supplies subject matter jurisdiction over APA challenges to unreasonably delayed agency action unless judicial review is otherwise precluded.

Ahmed v. Holder · filed 2014-03-19

Unless otherwise precluded, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides federal jurisdiction over any action brought against any officer of the United States in his official capacity. Thus, although the APA does not provide an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction, federal courts may entertain challenges to unreasonably delayed agency action on the basis of § 1331.

Section 1331 confers subject-matter jurisdiction over claims seeking judicial review of agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Jama v. Department of Homeland Security · filed 2014-07-25

In the instant case, the district court had jurisdiction over Jama’s APA claims pursuant to the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Accordingly, dismissal pursuant to 12(b)(1) was improper.

Section 1331 provides subject-matter jurisdiction to review a military correction board’s decision under the APA regardless of the board’s authority to grant the requested relief.

Saint-Fleur v. McHugh · filed 2015-03-17

But the Board’s scope of authority does not control whether a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction to review a Board’s decision under the APA. A federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction to review an APA claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under the APA even if the claims may be insufficiently stated.

Guam Contractors Association v. Sessions · filed 2018-01-24

Here, the employers present various claims arising under the APA and regardless whether 23 they have adequately stated those claims, by raising them they have adequately invoked the 24 court’s federal question jurisdiction—as various courts have recognized.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims for relief under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Lu · filed 2025-09-30

As such, the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the APA claim through 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims for non-monetary relief under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Bruzzone v. Hampton · filed 1977-05-05

With respect to the claims for non-monetary relief, this Court has jurisdiction to provide relief pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act under the general federal question provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires an underlying right to sue; citing it alone is insufficient to establish jurisdiction.

Yamich v. ATF · filed 2025-02-19

As his basis for jurisdiction, Yamich cites 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but that is not a grant of jurisdiction, there must also be an underlying right to sue.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based solely on the Federal Rules of Evidence because those rules create no cause of action.

Mizell v. Weatherford · filed 2023-01-10

The Federal Rules of Evidence don’t create causes of action.

Section 1331 requires an independent federal right of action; the Declaratory Judgment Act does not supply one.

Aland v. U.S. Department of the Interior · filed 2022-12-30

Thus, Aland cannot use the Declaratory Judgment Act to provide the private right of action needed for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331, by itself, is insufficient to create federal-question jurisdiction.

Toro v. Gil · filed 2000-07-11

In her complaint, Plaintiff cites to no statute other than section 1331 to support her claim of jurisdiction. This statute, by itself, is insufficient to create jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no jurisdiction for a counterclaim when the underlying federal statute gives the claimant no cause of action.

Herman v. Excel Corp. · filed 1999-02-09

Because the FLSA does not provide a cause of action for employers to sue the Secretary of Labor for declaratory relief, sections 1331, 1337, and 1367 provide no basis for Excel’s Counterclaim.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over federal-question civil actions but does not itself create a cause of action for relief.

McNally v. Colorado State Public Defender · filed 2001-07-11

Although § 1331 creates original jurisdiction in the district courts for civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, it does not itself create a cause of action upon which a plaintiff may seek relief.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction but does not provide an independent cause of action.

One Thousand Friends of Iowa v. Mineta · filed 2002-11-22

As held in the September 20, 2002 Order, neither § 1331 nor the Declaratory Judgment Act provides an independent cause of action.

Section 1331 does not itself create a cause of action.

Doe v. Islamic Salvation Front · filed 2003-03-31

Plaintiffs' assertion that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 gives rise to a cause of action is unavailing for the reasons explained in Tel-Oren, 726 F.2d at 779 n. 4.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction but does not create a cause of action.

Schneider v. Kissinger · filed 2004-03-30

Even if “[section 1331 provides an independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction over all claims alleging violations of international law, relying on the settled proposition that federal common law incorporates international law[,]” Pis.’ Opp. I at 25-26, it cannot possibly be said that the plaintiffs bring suit for a violation of § 1331, which merely provides federal question jurisdiction and not a cause of action.

Section 1331 requires plaintiffs to allege a cause of action created by a substantive federal statute in addition to invoking federal-question jurisdiction.

McGuirl v. United States · filed 2004-03-31

However, section 1331 requires that the plaintiffs allege another basis for jurisdiction in addition to section 1331, i.e. a cause of action created by a substantive federal statute.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction but does not create a cause of action for violations of international law.

Rasul v. Rumsfeld · filed 2006-02-06

Moreover, the plaintiffs cannot bring suit for a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this statute confers only federal question jurisdiction, not a cause of action for violations of international law.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself provide a cause of action.

Onyiuke v. NEW JERSEY STATE SUPREME COURT · filed 2006-06-27

Sections 1331 and 1343(3) are jurisdictional and do not provide a cause of action.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction but does not create a cause of action for violations of international law.

Harbury v. Hayden · filed 2006-08-01

Moreover, Plaintiff cannot use 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as the basis for a suit claiming a violation of international law, as Section 1331 merely confers federal question jurisdiction, rather than creating any kind of cause-of-action for international law violations.

Section 1331 grants jurisdiction over actions arising under federal law but does not itself create a cause of action; the action must arise under a separate federal law.

325 Bleecker, Inc. v. Local Union No. 747 · filed 2007-03-31

Section 1331 pertains to “arising under” jurisdiction and gives federal courts jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, Laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This jurisdictional statute does not, in and of itself create a cause of action, but rather depends upon an action arising under a separate federal law before a district court’s jurisdiction is proper.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself create a cause of action.

Satterfield v. Scibana · filed 2008-04-30

Mr. Satterfield’s petition also sought relief under two jurisdictional statutes, § 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4) and may also have attempted to describe an “action aris[ing] out of the United States Constitution and laws.” ... The jurisdictional statutes do not provide ... any additional cause of action, and Mr. Satterfield does not cite, nor have we found, any other constitutional or statutory cause of action under which his restitution challenge might be brought.

Section 1331 does not itself create a substantive cause of action to support federal-question jurisdiction.

Sykes v. Dudas · filed 2008-09-02

Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint asserts three bases for jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (patents), and 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(4) (PTO determinations). The first two statutes do not create proper subject matter jurisdiction in this case because they do not themselves create the substantive causes of action on which Plaintiff may bring suit.

Section 1331 does not create substantive rights; a plaintiff invoking it must have a cause of action arising from a federal right.

Hanson v. Wyatt · filed 2008-09-10

Nor does § 1331. See W. Shoshone Bus. Council v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1052, 1058 (10th Cir. 1993) (to bring case under § 1331, plaintiff must have cause of action arising from a federal right).

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims premised on a federal cause of action, even when those claims allege violations of state law.

Sevin v. Parish of Jefferson · filed 2008-12-16

Because the plaintiffs’ “state law” claims are premised upon a federal cause of action, the Court has original jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the plaintiff also advances a separate, legally cognizable cause of action.

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS v. Cheney · filed 2009-01-19

Accordingly, for this Court to maintain federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Plaintiffs must also advance a separate, legally cognizable cause of action.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself create a right to relief or a cause of action.

Van Ravenswaay v. Napolitano · filed 2009-05-04

The general federal-question statute does ... not itself give rise to a right for relief.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself create a substantive right or cause of action.

Van Ravenswaay v. Chertoff · filed 2009-05-04

The general federal- question statute does not itself give rise to a right for relief.

Section 1331 does not establish federal-question jurisdiction merely because a plaintiff cites it; the plaintiff must also plead a cause of action.

Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Walden Resources, LLC · filed 2009-11-19

Of course, Bituminous cannot establish subject matter jurisdiction by citing to either § 1331 or § 1332 alone. Bituminous must also plead a cause of action to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not itself create a right to relief, even when it supplies federal-question jurisdiction.

Brown v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 2010-09-29

Even if, as Brown argues, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants subject matter jurisdiction over this new claim challenging the interpretation of the statutes he cites, the "general federal-question statute does not itself give rise to a right for relief.”

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over federal-question civil actions but creates no independent cause of action.

Marciano v. Shulman · filed 2011-07-01

As the Commissioner points out, however, § 1331 does not create any causes of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims against entities when there is no federal cause of action against them.

Miguelachuli v. Federal Deposit Insurance · filed 2011-07-29

There being no diversity nor a federal cause of action against these entities, the case is remanded to the state court for further proceedings.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over actions arising under federal law but does not itself create a cause of action.

Herrera-Castanola v. Eric Holder, Jr. · filed 2013-06-17

And although 28 U.S.C. § 1331 gives courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, the provision “does not create causes of action, but only confers jurisdiction to adjudicate those arising from other sources which satisfy its limiting provisions.”

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over constitutional claims but does not create a separate cause of action for constitutional violations.

A.D. ex rel. McGhee v. Alabama Department of Human Resources · filed 2014-01-31

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is a statute that simply provides that the federal courts have original jurisdiction over all claims arising under the Constitution of the United States. It is not a separate and distinct cause of action from that alleged under Count Nine. Thus, these two counts are merged for consideration as a claimed violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction but does not provide substantive rights or an independent cause of action.

Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes v. First Bank & Trust Co. · filed 2014-02-11

The only other relevant, federal statutes that we can locate in the amended complaint are jurisdictional: 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1362. But neither provides substantive rights or a cause of action for Plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1331 requires a federal cause of action or a right to relief necessarily depending on a substantial federal question; claims lacking any basis in federal law must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Frederick v. Hillyer · filed 2015-03-11

A court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when the face of the Complaint “establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the Plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” ... Counts I, II, and III have no basis in federal law and for that reason must be dismissed.

Section 1331 does not itself provide a cause of action or a basis for relief when no viable claim exists.

Francis v. Maloney · filed 2015-08-19

Nor, it must be noted, do his bare invocations of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (original question jurisdiction), and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4)(providing jurisdiction "to recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote"), provide an alternative basis for us to act.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not provide a cause of action to enforce a favorable IDEA hearing officer decision.

B.D. v. DC · filed 2016-03-22

We thus hold that neither section 1415(i)(2)(A) nor section 1331 provides a cause of action for parents seeking to enforce a favorable hearing officer decision.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not provide a cause of action to enforce a favorable IDEA hearing officer decision.

B.D. ex rel. Davis v. District of Columbia · filed 2016-03-22

We thus hold that neither section 1415(i)(2)(A) nor section 1331 provides a cause of action for parents seeking to enforce a favorable hearing officer decision.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint filed in state court expressly pleads a federal cause of action, such as an FMLA claim.

Perez v. Brockton Neighborhood Health Center, Inc. · filed 2019-01-09

Here, the complaint filed in state court contains “an explicit federal cause of action” under the FMLA.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself create a substantive right or cause of action.

Baan Rao Thai Restaurant v. Pompeo · filed 2019-07-29

“The general federal-question statute does not itself give rise to a right for relief.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal cause of action.

Couch v. Rogers · filed 2019-08-13

Plaintiff does not assert a federal cause of action in this case so as to fall under this Court’s federal-question jurisdiction, and his Complaint states that he is proceeding under this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not create a separate cause of action.

Landon v. Vallandingham · filed 2020-03-10

Plaintiff also alleges a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. That statute pertains to federal question jurisdiction and does not create a separate cause of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim based on a federal statute unless a federal cause of action exists.

Marinov v. Fiat Chrysler Automotive · filed 2020-11-09

“[W]hen the basis of the action is a federal statute, a federal cause of action must exist as well for a federal court to hear a given claim; the general grant of federal question jurisdiction contained in § 1331, without a federal cause of action, is not enough.”

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify an underlying source of federal law that supplies a cause of action.

Okere v. United States · filed 2020-12-21

Put differently, § 1331 itself does not confer subject matter jurisdiction; rather, a complaint must point to an underlying source of federal law that sup- plies the plaintiff with a cause of action.

Section 1331 does not itself provide a cause of action, so a standalone claim seeking to collect an ERISA judgment through successor liability does not establish federal-question jurisdiction without an independent federal cause of action.

East Central Illinois Pipe Tra v. Prather Plumbing & Heating, In · filed 2021-07-07

A federal right of action is a separate requirement, and § 1331 does not itself provide a right of action.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself provide a cause of action for every alleged violation of a federal right or immunity.

Kelerchian v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Fire · filed 2021-07-12

28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides district courts subject matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” But § 1331 does not provide a cause of action for all alleged violations of a federal right or immunity.

Bare references to race and sex without supporting allegations do not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Kitchen v. Douglas County Probate Division · filed 2021-07-27

In addition, there is no basis for a federal question claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not set forth a federal cause of action. The fact that she uses the words “race” and “sex” in her Amended Complaint are insufficient to set forth a claim. There is not a single allegation that would give rise to such an action.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over a claim only when the plaintiff asserts an independent cause of action arising from another source of law.

Durr v. United States · filed 2021-11-05

And 28 U.S.C. § 1331 only confers jurisdiction to adjudicate those causes of action “arising from other sources” in the law. ... Durr then must do more than invoke § 1331, he also must assert “an independent cause of action under which to proceed.”

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself create a substantive cause of action.

Nelson v. Saint Paul City Council · filed 2021-11-29

Specifically asked what “Federal Constitutional, statutory or treaty right” is at issue in the Complaint, Nelson points to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and § 1332. (See Complaint ¶ 4, Nov. 1, 2021, Docket No. 1.) But as the discussion above indicates, these are simply jurisdic- tional provisions; they do not ground any substantive causes of action. See generally 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (containing no discussions of substantive causes of action). This action thus cannot “arise under” § 1331 or § 1332.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself create an independent claim for relief.

Murphy v. Lamborn · filed 2022-01-27

Though § 1331 provides the basis for federal question jurisdiction, it does not provide the basis for a claim, in and of itself.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not determine whether a plaintiff can assert a constitutional claim.

Shimizu v. Takamura · filed 2022-02-09

In an effort to escape the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff cannot assert 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendants because they are not state actors, Plaintiff now claims that she mistakenly cited § 1983 in the Complaint and points to her invocation of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1333, and 1350. ECF No. 8-1 at 11. Putting aside the fact that her “mistake” is not a basis for reconsideration, these jurisdictional provisions have no bearing on whether she can assert constitutional claims against Defendants.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the pleadings fail to state a plausible federal cause of action.

Zavala v. Amerigroup Insurance · filed 2022-05-10

In summary, Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible federal cause of action in his pleadings that could give rise to this Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and there is no indication from his pleadings that the requirements of diversity jurisdiction are satisfied.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to adequately allege a federal cause of action.

Murray v. Pyle · filed 2022-11-16

Second, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint does not adequately allege any federal cause of action for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 establishes federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself create substantive rights or an independent cause of action.

Glover v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 2023-01-18

To the extent he intended to do so, such a claim would fail because section 1331 simply establishes the district courts’ federal-question jurisdiction; it does not itself create substantive rights independent of some other cause of action.

Section 1331 does not itself create a cause of action.

Dinkins v. Moon · filed 2023-03-17

Mr. Dinkins mentions some of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see, e.g., Doc. 2 at ¶ 46, and the jurisdictional provisions in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Id. at ¶¶ 22, 26, 48. As he has been informed before, those rules and statutes do not create any cause of action.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself create a cause of action.

Stroupe v. Borchert · filed 2023-06-29

That statute confers jurisdiction to federal courts over complaints involving federal claims; it is not, itself, a “federal law [that] creates the cause of action.” Frank, 128 F.3d at 922.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction but does not create a substantive claim.

Glover v. Hochschild · filed 2023-07-27

This statute is not a basis for a substantive claim. ... To the extent that he intended to make a claim under § 1331, however, any such claim must be dismissed.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over federal questions but does not itself create a cause of action.

Quinones-Pimentel v. Cannon · filed 2023-10-27

Third, we understand Appellants' final argument to be that, even if their claims cannot proceed under Bivens, the statute allowing for federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, gives them a presumptive right of action in federal court to bring their claims. We are not persuaded. That statute gives courts the power to hear cases; it does not give plaintiffs the power to maintain any cause of action they want.

Section 1331 does not create an independent claim for relief.

Moss v. Clark County Title · filed 2024-01-03

There is no independent claim for relief under the federal question jurisdiction statute.

Section 1331 provides a basis for federal-question jurisdiction but does not create a cause of action.

Bonton v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2024-09-20

Elsewhere in her amended complaint, Plaintiff cites the federal statute for federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which is a basis for federal jurisdiction, but it also is not a cause of action.

Section 1331 provides a basis for federal-question jurisdiction but does not create a cause of action.

Bonton v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2024-10-10

Elsewhere in her amended complaint, Plaintiff cites the federal statute for federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which is also grounds for jurisdiction and not a cause of action.

Section 1331 does not itself create substantive rights or causes of action, so it cannot independently authorize judicial review of a consular officer’s decision.

Nelson's Cabinetry, Inc. v. Blinken · filed 2025-01-13

Furthermore, any argument by plaintiffs that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 separately provides a basis for judicial review over the consular officer’s decision must be rejected because “[S]ection 1331 does not in itself create substantive rights or causes of action ....” Mead Corp. v. United States, 490 F. Supp. 405, 407 (D.D.C. 1980); accord Stanley v. Duff, Civil Action No. 18-1746 (TSC), 2020 WL 13967974, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2020).

Section 1331 provides a basis for federal jurisdiction but does not create a cause of action.

Bellas v. Kahn · filed 2025-02-25

Plaintiff’s citation of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 define the bases for federal jurisdiction, but are not causes of action.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over federal-law claims pleaded in the complaint; the court held that claims under statutes without a private cause of action do not support that jurisdiction.

CRANDALL v. ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2025-04-29

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” as pleaded on the face of the well-pleaded complaint. ... Because none of Mr. Crandall’s asserted federal claims provides a cognizable private cause of action, the Court concludes it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint’s federal-law claims.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself create a cause of action.

Santos-Vercelli v. Moses · filed 2025-05-07

28 U.S.C. § 1331 is the statute giving the Court jurisdiction when there is a federal question, but that statute, in and of itself, does not give a person a cause of action in federal court.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction but does not independently create a cause of action.

Robinson v. Winburn · filed 2025-05-07

Robinson also cites 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction), but neither of those statutes independently create a cause of action.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself provide a cause of action.

Gassesse v. University of Connecticut · filed 2025-05-09

But Section 1331 does not itself provide a cause of action, and a cause of action does not spontaneously exist where a plaintiff, like Mr. Gassesse, alleges violations of federal law and the federal Constitution.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim under a federal statute that creates no private cause of action.

Killion v. Truist Bank · filed 2025-05-29

If a federal statute does not create any private cause of action, then the district court lacks federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction but does not itself provide a cause of action.

Hairston v. Gallagher · filed 2025-08-26

Third, Plaintiff’s reliance on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Article III of the U.S. Constitution is similarly not compelling. While these certainly deal with this court’s jurisdiction, they do not, as asserted here, provide Plaintiff with a cause of action by which he can seek specific relief.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction but does not, by itself, authorize a damages claim for a constitutional violation.

Maniaci v. Warren · filed 1970-07-20

Assuming that the constitutional rights of plaintiffs have been violated, they cannot then assert a federal cause of action for damages by relying solely on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (general federal question jurisdiction). Congress has provided specific statutory authority for federal damage actions against state officials. But statutory authority is a prerequisite for a federal cause of action for damages, even though the wrong complained of is the violation of a constitutional right.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction but does not create a separate cause of action.

Rushing · filed 2026-02-11

These statutes do not give rise to a separate cause of action. Section 1331, 1367, and 1343(a)(3) address the jurisdiction of federal courts.

Section 1331 alone does not provide a claim for monetary damages.

Johnson v. USA · filed 2020-08-26

Johnson has not shown that his appeal of the ruling that he failed to state a claim under § 1331 against any defendant for monetary damages in- volves legal points arguable on the merits.

Section 1331 generally requires an asserted federal cause of action; merely reciting federal laws or constitutional provisions is insufficient.

Jefferson v. Kramer · filed 2024-06-20

Jurisdiction under § 1331 requires more than simply reciting federal laws or ... Constitutional provisions; rather, federal cause of action must be asserted.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a telecommunications carrier’s action to recover charges due under a tariff filed with the Federal Communications Commission.

Worldcom Technologies, Inc. v. ICC Inteleca Communications, Inc. · filed 1999-03-04

An action such as this one, brought by a telecommunications carrier for the recovery of charges due under a tariff filed with the Federal Communications Commission, is considered an action under federal law and jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a suit to collect unpaid telecommunications charges under an FCC tariff because the claim depends on federal law.

Worldcom v. NH Exteriors · filed 1999-03-09

Plainly, the duties and obligations of the parties in this case grow out o f , and depend upon, the statute. See Rice, 247 U.S. at 202. Consequently, the court has jurisdiction over Worldcom’s lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging breach of a Standard Flood Insurance Policy because the claim raises a substantial question of federal law on its face.

Newton v. Alabama Ins. Underwriting · filed 2000-04-20

Thus a complaint alleging breach of an SFIP satisfies § 1331 by raising a substantial federal question on its face.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims that require interpretation of a Standard Flood Insurance Policy issued under the National Flood Insurance Program.

Masoner v. First Community Insurance · filed 2000-01-13

Thus, the Court agrees with Defendant that to the extent that Plaintiffs’ claims will require interpretation of the terms of Plaintiffs’ Standard Flood Insurance Policy, the claims present questions of federal law sufficient to establish jurisdiction for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over suits seeking indemnity on flood insurance policies because the interests of the United States are at stake.

Downey, Michael v. State Farm Fire · filed 2001-12-05

The fema contends that our conclusion with respect to the jurisdictional issue--that suits seeking indemnity on flood insurance policies may be filed under 28 U.S.C. sec.1331 because the interests of the United States are at stake, but not under 42 U.S.C. sec.4072 unless the Director of fema is named as a defendant--"does great harm to the National Flood Insurance Program."

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over suits seeking indemnity on flood insurance policies because the interests of the United States are at stake.

Downey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 2001-12-05

The fema contends that our conclusion with respect to the jurisdictional issue — that suits seeking indemnity on flood insurance policies may be filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the interests of the United States are at stake, but not under 42 U.S.C. § 4072 unless the Director of fema is named as a defendant— “does great harm to the National Flood Insurance Program.”

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over disputes interpreting standard flood insurance policies, but not state law claims concerning procurement of such policies that raise no substantial federal question.

Waltrip v. Brooks Agency, Inc. · filed 2006-02-01

The court concludes that even though federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 exists for SFIP interpretation, as well as challenges of the denial of SFIP claims brought against an insurance company, Studio Frames Ltd. v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 369 F.3d 376, 379-80 (4th Cir.2004), such jurisdiction does not exist in a lawsuit bringing state law claims of negligence, breach of contract, or fraud relating to the procurement of flood insurance under the NFIP.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims concerning procurement of National Flood Insurance Act policies.

Landry v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 2006-04-25

The distinction between handling and procurement is well-supported by case law, and the Court believes claims involving procurement of NFIA policies do not fall within the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.