Also known as: federal questions · federal-question · § 1331 · arising under jurisdiction
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction consisting of a civil action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The claim must appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. Jurisdiction exists even without an express private right of action when the plaintiff seeks relief directly under federal law.
Felicia Fuentes sued federal agents in district court after an office search and server seizure, alleging direct violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The complaint pleaded a right to relief under the Constitution itself. The court recognized federal question jurisdiction because the allegations invoked federal constitutional rights even without an express statutory remedy.
Floyd Franklin filed a state-law contract suit in state court. The defendant answered with a federal preemption defense and filed a counterclaim under federal environmental law. The federal court lacked jurisdiction because only the plaintiff's properly pleaded cause of action controls the arising-under determination.
Finn Fletcher sued for federal copyright infringement over unauthorized use of protected maps and added a state unfair-competition claim arising from the same submissions to a state agency. The federal court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim because both claims shared the same operative facts.
Faith Fitzgerald brought a state-law trespass action in state court. The complaint mentioned federal land-use statutes only to preempt a likely defense. The federal court had no jurisdiction because anticipation of a federal defense does not create an arising-under claim.
Frank Fisher asserted a federal securities claim and a related state breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim based on the same corporate transaction. The district court had discretion to hear the state claim because both derived from a common nucleus of operative fact that a plaintiff would ordinarily try in one proceeding.
Felix Franco brought a federal antitrust claim against one defendant and added a state-law claim against an additional party arising from the same pricing scheme. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the added claim because the statute authorizes joinder of parties when a federal question anchor exists.
In 1991, about 10,000 Exxon dealers filed a class-action suit against the Exxon Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. They alleged an intentional and systematic scheme by which they were overcharged for fuel purchased from Exxon. The plaintiffs invoked the District Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Each dealer's claim was for slightly less than the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum. After a unanimous jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, the District Court certified the case for interlocutory review on the question of supplemental jurisdiction over class members who did not meet the jurisdictional minimum. In a separate action, a 9-year-old girl sued Star-Kist in a diversity action in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. She sought damages for unusually severe injuries she received when she sliced her finger on a tuna can. Her family joined in the suit seeking damages for emotional distress and medical expenses. The District Court granted summary judgment to Star-Kist, finding that none of the plaintiffs met the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court's extension of supplemental jurisdiction to the class members who did not meet the amount requirement. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that the injured girl, but not her family members, had made allegations of damages in the requisite amount. It further held that section 1367 authorizes supplemental jurisdiction only when the district court has original jurisdiction over the action. In a diversity case, original jurisdiction is lacking if one plaintiff fails to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals. The cases were consolidated before the Supreme Court.
View caseThe rule requires that the plaintiff's properly pleaded cause of action, not any defense or counterclaim, must arise under federal law. Jurisdiction is determined solely from the face of the complaint.
Supporting sources
No. Neither a federal defense in the answer nor a federal counterclaim can establish arising-under jurisdiction. Only the plaintiff's complaint controls.
Supporting sources
The court may do so when the federal and state claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact such that a plaintiff would ordinarily try them together in one proceeding.
Supporting sources
No. Jurisdiction exists when the plaintiff alleges a right to relief directly under the Constitution or federal law even if the provision creates no express private remedy.
Supporting sources
A complaint that raises federal law only to anticipate a defense does not arise under federal law. The federal issue must form part of the plaintiff's affirmative claim.
Supporting sources
…West Bros. Brick Co. v. Alexandria , 169 Va. 271, 282-283, 192 S. E. 881, 885-886, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 302 U. S. 658 (1937). : There are some 53 designated landmarks and 5 historic districts or scenic landmarks in Manhattan between 14th and 59th Streets. See Landmarks Preservation…