Also known as: federal question · federal-question jurisdiction · federal question jurisdiction · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction that exists when a plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint asserts a right to relief created by the Constitution, a federal statute, or a treaty. Jurisdiction may arise even without an express private right of action if the claim rests directly on federal law. Anticipated federal defenses or counterclaims cannot create this jurisdiction.
Forrest Falconer sued federal agents in district court after an office search and document seizure, alleging violations of Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The complaint sought damages directly under the Constitution without citing any statutory cause of action. The court exercised federal question jurisdiction because the claim rested on federal constitutional provisions.
Felicity French filed a state-law nuisance suit in state court against a chemical plant. The complaint mentioned federal pollution permits only to predict the defendant's likely compliance defense. The defendant removed on federal question grounds, but the district court remanded because the well-pleaded complaint asserted only state claims.
Fatou Fall sued in federal court for copyright infringement of climate maps and added a state unfair-competition claim arising from the same unauthorized copying and submissions. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim because both counts shared the same operative facts.
Farid Farahani brought a state contract action in state court and included allegations about a likely federal regulatory defense. The defendant removed, claiming federal question jurisdiction. The district court remanded because the complaint's reference to federal law appeared only in anticipation of the defense.
Floyd Franklin asserted a federal copyright claim and a related state unfair-competition claim in one complaint. Both claims stemmed from the same unauthorized use of protected maps submitted to a state agency. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction because the claims derived from a common nucleus of operative fact.
Fernando Farrell sued federal officers after an unauthorized search and seizure of servers, pleading damages directly under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The complaint contained no statutory cause of action. The district court recognized federal question jurisdiction over the implied constitutional claim.
On the morning of November 26, 1965, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics entered Webster Bivens's apartment in the Bronx. The agents broke open the door, handcuffed Bivens in front of his wife and young children, and thoroughly searched the apartment. They then transported Bivens to the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search. Several days later Bivens was released on his own recognizance, and he was never indicted or prosecuted for any offense. Bivens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the six agents in their individual capacities. His complaint sought fifteen thousand dollars in damages from each agent and alleged that the arrest and search were effected without a warrant, that unreasonable force was employed, and that the arrest was made without probable cause. Bivens claimed to have suffered great humiliation, embarrassment, and mental suffering as a result of the agents' conduct. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment.
View caseNo. Jurisdiction exists when the plaintiff alleges a right to relief directly under the Constitution or federal law even if the statute or constitutional provision creates no express civil remedy.
Supporting sources
No. The well-pleaded complaint rule limits the inquiry to the plaintiff's own cause of action. A federal issue raised only in the answer or counterclaim cannot support arising-under jurisdiction.
Supporting sources
A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claim so that the plaintiff would ordinarily try both in one proceeding.
Supporting sources
No. A complaint that asserts only a state-law cause of action and mentions federal law solely to predict the defendant's defense does not arise under federal law.
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…